.jpg)
Plan length in light of Kagenveama after Lam Motion would move dmi positive
Re Q1) Where B22C PDI $0 or negative there is no ACP. As a practical matter, plan gets confirmed at I - J over 36 months (no time now to explain why this is so);
Re Q2)Same answer as above;
Re Q3) Trustee or unsecured creditor have right to prosecute motion to modify plan to higher I - J during confirmed plan duration;
Re Q4) Same answer as first two.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Above median debtor in Chapter 13. Form 22c Chapter 13 Statement of
Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and
Disposable Income is a negative number on line 59 when including
totally undersecured second trust payment and arrears on second,
which debtor is contractually obligated to make for 60 months at the
time of petition filing. Planning to file a Lam motion to strip the
2nd trust deed lien in the Chapter 13 obviating the need for those
payments moving forward. Presuming the motion is granted, I then
deduct the amount of the average 2nd trust deed payments in line 47
and arrears on it in 48 from the expenses to determine the amount of
the plan payment for best efforts purposes. This would then make the
monthly disposable income calculation positive on line 59. In
determining plan length do we look at the dmi before or after the Lam
motion is granted? Presuming my analysis is correct so far, and the
dmi is a negative number at the time of filing, but then made
positive once a Lam motion is granted, is it mandatory that the plan
be 5 year plan in light of Kagenveama? If it is based upon the dmi
before Lam motion, I could theoretically propose a plan shorter than
36 months and not pay the unsecured creditors a dime, right?
Mark Jesseee
The post was migrated from Yahoo.