.jpg)
Murky Means Test
Thanks to one of our cdcbaa members (who will and should remain nameless), I am looking at a possible chapter 7 for a relatively high earner with primarily consumer debt, who is burdened by very high support and tax obligations. Making the analysis even more fun is the recent change in excluding alimony from income as the divorce case remains pending and that there will be substantial future atty fees and costs for the prospective debtor to pay to complete the divorce. Leaving aside section 707(b)(3) for the moment, my current conundrum pertains to the applicable household size, for allowable expenses under 707(b)(2), not the safe harbor under 707(b)(7), as prospective debtor has one child, who lives with him/her only part-time for whom he/she pays child support pursuant to an order of the divorce court. The issue is whether the child can be counted for household purposes. I have found no appellate decisions in this Circuit, but I did find one from the USBC in WA decided last year that includes a similar dependent child as one to be fully counted for household purposes -- as to 707(b)(7). I'm curious as to whether any of you has encountered this issue with UST-LA and with what result. In the prospective case it makes a significant difference. I'd also be curious as to how our LA Ch 13 trustees would look at this issue as to allowable expenses should a chapter 13 be filed instead.
The other issue I'm wrestling with is what to do with future divorce atty fees that the prospective debtor will have to pay his/her attorney should the case be filed now, not after the divorce case is concluded. I have found no reported cases yet that address this particular issue. The standards for special circumstances in the reported cases in this circuit seem to define special circumstances in a result-oriented way. I have also thought about possibly including the postpetition divorce fees as admin expenses in either a chapter 7 or 13. I assume this is more likely to not draw an objection in chapter 13.
Sorry about raising these issues before a long weekend. Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 1080Torrance, California 90503Telephone: (310) 792-5864Facsimile: (310) 347-4353Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com,MitnickLaw@gmail.com Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files..AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink {min-height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden;}.AOLWebSuite a {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;}.AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor:default;}
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
Thanks to one of our cdcbaa members (who will and should remain nameless), I am looking at a possible chapter 7 for a relatively high earner with primarily consumer debt, who is burdened by very high support and tax obligations. Making the analysis even more fun is the recent change in excluding alimony from income as the divorce case remains pending and that there will be substantial future atty fees and costs for the prospective debtor to pay to complete the divorce. Leaving aside section 707(b)(3) for the moment, my current conundrum pertains to the applicable household size, for allowable expenses under 707(b)(2), not the safe harbor under 707(b)(7), as prospective debtor has one child, who lives with him/her only part-time for whom he/she pays child support pursuant to an order of the divorce court. The issue is whether the child can be counted for household purposes. I have found no appellate decisions in this Circuit, but I did find one from the USBC in WA decided last year that includes a similar dependent child as one to be fully counted for household purposes -- as to 707(b)(7). I'm curious as to whether any of you has encountered this issue with UST-LA and with what result. In the prospective case it makes a significant difference. I'd also be curious as to how our LA Ch 13 trustees would look at this issue as to allowable expenses should a chapter 13 be filed instead. The other issue I'm wrestling with is what to do with future divorce atty fees that the prospective debtor will have to pay his/her attorney should the case be filed now, not after the divorce case is concluded. I have found no reported cases yet that address this particular issue. The standards for special circumstances in the reported cases in this circuit seem to define special circumstances in a result-oriented way. I have also thought about possibly including the postpetition divorce fees as admin expenses in either a chapter 7 or 13. I assume this is more likely to not draw an objection in chapter 13. Sorry about raising these issues before a long weekend. Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink {min-height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden;}.AOLWebSuite a {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;}.AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor:default;}
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
The post was migrated from Yahoo.