.jpg)
Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Peter:
This is the way I explain it, if you have more to add, lets make a cummulative list.
100 percent plan that takes 12 months is fine.
But when I/Jshowdisposable income and the plan is under 100%, at least 36 months to show best efforts (or above-median income).
When cmi is positive, must be 60 months.
anything else?
dennis
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
1322(d) :
Tthe plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than three 3 years, unless the court, for cause, approves a longer period, but the court may not approve a period that is longer than five 5 years. (changes in red, written numbers omitted.)
Plan can be any length up to 36 months, to accomplish purpose needed by debtor. I've written and confirmed 12 month plans. We used to have a common 6 month sale plan, but that alternative was lost to a 9th Cir, no six month sale plans without and open escrow.
1322 (d)still has this language, so 36 months not mandated, just a standard.
dennis
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Last thing I want to do is contradict a respected B22 guru like Peter
Lively, but I just don't see that. Kagenveama only holds that if B22c is 0,
it need not be 60 months. Or, as the 9th Circuit says it: "when there is no
"projected disposable income," there is no "applicable commitment period."
541 F3d 868 at 876. There is nothing that mandates (or allows) 36 months.
As you all know, it's a convention for plan length duratoin that's been
settled upon for practical reasons, but 36 months itself is not based on
case law. Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Last thing I want to do is contradict a respected B22 guru like Peter
Lively, but I just don't see that. Kagenveama only holds that if B22c is 0,
it need not be 60 months. Or, as the 9th Circuit says it: "when there is no
"projected disposable income," there is no "applicable commitment period."
541 F3d 868 at 876. There is nothing that mandates (or allows) 36 months.
As you all know, it's a convention for plan length duratoin that's been
settled upon for practical reasons, but 36 months itself is not based on
case law. Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Kagenveama provided binding law that if B22C is $0 or negative then only need 36 months!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Charles Shamash wrote:
The only two ways I know are 100% payout and if the B22 says you can (below median income past sic months).
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:38 AM, "Hale Andrew Antico" wrote:
Kagenveama provided binding law that if B22C is $0 or negative then only need 36 months!Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 1, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Charles Shamash <CS@locs.com> wrote:
The only two ways I know are 100% payout and if the B22 says you can (below median income past sic months). Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 1, 2010, at 7:38 AM, "Hale Andrew Antico" <bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
There is no case that says "make it 3 years under these circumstances."
It's a practical consideration implemented by some trustees locally in
interpreting in the debtors' favor a case that clearly stands for something
different. If trustees chose to drop this tomorrow, we'd have a shaky leg
to stand on arguing 3 years, IMHO.
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
There is no change in the law. If it is a SV or ND case the trustee
is so swamped, many times her office has not verified the numbers from
the paystubs by the 341(a) meeting. The trustee lists the 3 year vs.
5 year plan as an issue until she has verified the income calculation.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE
PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Sun 28/02/10 7:58 PM , "shawnswhite" shawn@cabankrupt.com sent:
I have had several debtors who are well below the median income. The
software I am using and my reading of the means test says that debtor
can do a 3 year plan. When I meet with the trustee the first thing she
says is to change the plan from 3 to 5 years. I have had that happen
twice recently.
Is there a new case that changes the basic rule about under median
income debtors being eligible for a 3 year plan?
Thanks.
Shawn
Links:
[1] mailto:shawn@cabankrupt.com?subjectUnder what circumstances can
debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
[2] mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com?subjectUnder what circumstances
can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
[3]
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have had several debtors who are well below the median income. The software I am using and my reading of the means test says that debtor can do a 3 year plan. When I meet with the trustee the first thing she says is to change the plan from 3 to 5 years. I have had that happen twice recently.
Is there a new case that changes the basic rule about under median income debtors being eligible for a 3 year plan?
Thanks.
Shawn
The post was migrated from Yahoo.