Summary:

The Cooks filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and, being above median income, were required to calculate their "projected disposable income" using Official Form 122C-2. As their plan provided for the retention of their home and cure and maintenance of the on-going mortgage, they deducted their monthly mortgage payment of $2,233.34 from the Means Test, despite the IRS Local Standard for mortgage expenses being only $1,098.00.

Summary: Ms. Hector, a realtor with income subject to fluctuation dependent on sales, filed Chapter 7, but did not include her Domestic Partner in her household size nor any income contribution, as their finances and expenses were neither commingled nor shared. Ms. Hector did not assist her Domestic Partner with housing expenses, but did pay all for all groceries and cleaning supplies for both. As such, Ms. Hector claimed deductions for housing and utility expenses on the Means Test.

Summary: The Bankruptcy Administrator moved to dismiss the Debtors case arguing that on the Means Test they were limited to deduction of the lesser of either the actual mortgage and vehicle expenses or the amounts under the applicable National or Local standard. In affirming denial of this motion by the the bankruptcy court, the Court of Appeals held that based on the plan language of 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) “[t]he debtor’s monthly expenses shall be the debtor’s applicable monthly expense amounts specified under the National Standards and Local Standards.” 11 U.S.C.

Summary: At issue in this case was first whether the Applicable Commitment period, as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(4), was a temporal requirement, i.e. 3 years for below median income debtors or 5 years for those with income above median, or was not applicable if the Debtors had no disposable income under § 1325(b)(1). Agreeing with now all of the Circuit Courts that have answered this question, the 4th Circuit held that the Applicable Commitment Period is, in fact temporal.

Summary: The Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan proposed the surrender of an ATV, but she nonetheless took a deduction, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii), for the payments due on this secured obligation. Finding that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010), allows a bankruptcy court to “ account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation." Id. at 2478 (Emphasis added), the 4th Circuit disallowed the deduction from the Debtor’s “projected disposable income” under 11 U.S.C.

Summary: The Debtor excluded from her CMI her non-filing husband's monthly payments of $166.00 for his student loans and $1,628.00 related to  their former residence, including renovation costs..  This resulted in a negative disposable monthly income.  The Bankruptcy Administrator argued that since the non-filing spouse was spending money on expenses and renovations of joint property, such payments were benefitting the Debtor and should be included in CMI. First the Bankruptcy Court and then, on appeal, the District Court agreed with the Debtor, finding that

Summary: The Debtors filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2008.  Following a Motion to convert or dismiss the case filed by the Chapter 13 Trustee, the Debtors voluntarily converted to Chapter 7.  The U.S. Trustee sought dismissal of the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

Summary: In a striking example of bi-partisan support,  the House of Representative passed the H.R.  2192 by a vote of 407-1.  This bill would renew the National  Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Act   ("NGARDRA") for an additional 4 years. First enacted in 2008, NGARDRA relieves National Guard and Reserve service members of many of the onerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, by providing that if such a service member found him or herself in the unfortunate position of needing to file bankruptcy in the 18-months after returning from active duty

Summary: The Court examined the three options for determining household size for Means Test calculations.  Rejecting both the Census Bureau "heads on beds" approach and the IRS dependency test, the Court instead found that an analysis of  "economic unit" was appropriate. "Head on Beds" could be inaccurate "[i]f the debtor’s household includes an individual who  purchases these items from his own separate income, and contributes nothing to the debtor’s household for these items, then the deduction will include an unwarranted extra amount that wouldotherwise be