Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

"Particularly, the UST contended that, without the Debtors voluntary
deductions for retirement plan contributions and repayment of pension
loans, the Debtors had the financial ability to repay their creditors
without hardship." Aren't these expenses allowed in a chapter 13 though?
So now if they file a chapter 13, isn't it a wash and they may as well have
been allowed to stay in a chapter 7? Does this decision mean that we are
going to get more challenges to proposed chapter 13 plan payments if the
debtor has to repay a retirement loan or has voluntary contributions to a
401K?
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM, wrote:
>
>
> Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
> 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
> Torrance, California 90503
> (310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
> MitnickLaw@aol.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.*
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> To: Bus. Law Insolvency Constituency List
> Sent: Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:32 pm
> Subject: Update from the State Bar Business Law Section's INSOLVENCY LAW
> COMMITTEE
>
>
> [image: http://www.calbar.org/barseal_75x75.jpg]
> *Insolvency Law Committee - Business Law Section of the State Bar of
> California*
> Bankruptcy e-Bulletin
> Co-Chair
> Thomas R. Phinney
>
> Co-Chair
> James P. Hill
>
> Co-Vice Chair
> Uzzi O. Raanan
>
> Co-Vice Chair
> Diana D. Herman
>
> *Travis Gall*
> Business Law Section
> Administrative Assistant
> State Bar of California
> 180 Howard St.
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> 415-538-2570
> FAX 415-538-2368
> travis.gall@calbar.ca.gov
> October 17, 2012
>
> Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee, the
> following is a recent case update:
> * *
> *SUMMARY*
>
> *The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (BAP)
> recently affirmed a bankruptcy courts dismissal of a chapter 7 case under
> Bankruptcy Code Section 707(b)(3)(B), which section permits the court to
> dismiss a bankruptcy case for abuse based upon a totality of the
> circumstances relating to a debtors financial situation. Specifically,
> the BAP found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in
> finding that the Debtors had the financial ability to repay their creditors
> after: (i) disallowing the Debtors voluntary retirement plan contributions
> and pension loan repayments as an adjustment to their income, and (ii)
> taking into account post-petition increases in the Debtors income. In
> re Ng, BAP No. 11-1702 PaJuH (9th Cir. B.A.P. September 7, 2012). To
> read the entire decision, click In re Ng
The post was migrated from Yahoo.