Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Jim is correct. Furthermore, should the business expenses be reduced, modify the plan to a shorter duration since PDI 0 and there is no ACP. Setting the Plan duration at a length to pay required debts (admin, secured and priority unsecured) solves the problem of dicta in Kagenveama about the trustee or creditors having the right to modify the plan at any time after confirmation.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I know Peter will chime in on this also but there is what I consider
dicta in the Kagenveama case which Renee says is one of the rules of the
case. That is, and the judges are following it, that the day after
confirmation a Motion to Modify can be brought based on the "actual"
income and expenses of the debtor and thereby bringing into play all the
reasonable and necessary standards we used to play by. My position is
that the "comment" in Kagenveama is not the holding in the case but I
have been overruled by Renee.
Jim King

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Plan length and PP are both in play.
It can be a 36-month plan (Kagenveama), and still best effort issues for
what the plan payment amounts are. You didn't say what percentage the
unsecured debts are, but if it's "mostly" massive IRS debt, that implies
that the unsecured debt is relatively small. The objections tell me that
you're giving them a small percentage. With (relatively) minor adjustments
in your budget -- according to the Trustee -- your client can likely pay the
unsecureds off in full during those 36 months.

As for Larry's comments, I have confirmed 36-month plans under Kagenveama in
the Valley. It's an issue to fight at the Confirmation hearings, and a
likely winner for you. I doubt you'll need to get to a judge; Renee knows
the law, and I'm assuming her replacement (I'm not sure the announcement is
public yet) does also.

Hale
_____

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset-ascii
Above-median debtors 60 month plans
Below median debtors 36 month plans
If you follow Kagenveama and propose a lower payment than what your
budget shows you can afford (difference b/w I and J), then the trustee
will simply file a motion to modify after confirmation on the basis that
you can afford more. Judge Jury pointed this out at the meeting last
Saturday too.
Raj T. Wadhwani
Wadhwani Law Firm, APLC
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1160
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 784-0500
Fax: (818) 784-0508
raj@wadhwanilaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

To the Chapter 13 experts out there:

I have an above-median income self-employed debtor in a Ch. 13 case in the
Valley. Due mostly to massive tax debts, he has zero disposable income
under the B22C Means Test form. We have proposed a 60 month Plan with
payments of $1375 to repay the priority tax debt in full. The Trustee is
raising all the usual old best efforts objections and asking for lots of
documentation to support claimed business expenses. Am I misunderstanding
Kagenveama, or doesn't the means test control, and aren't these objections
by the Trustee without merit? If I try to argue this to Judge KT with the
Trustee saying she still hasn't received all the documents she's requested,
what outcome?

Jim
James R. Selth
Weintraub & Selth, APC
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
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
To the Chapter 13 experts out
there:

I have an above-median income self-employed debtor in a
Ch. 13 case in the Valley. Due mostly to massive tax debts, he has
zero disposable income under the B22C Means Test form. We have proposed a
60 month Plan with payments of $1375 to repay the priority tax debt in
full. The Trustee is raising all the usual old best efforts objections and
asking for lots of documentation to support claimed business expenses. Am
I misunderstanding Kagenveama, or doesn't the means test control, and
aren't these objections by the Trustee without merit? If I try to
argue this to Judge KT with the Trustee saying she still hasn't received all the
documents she's requested, what outcome?

Jim

James
R. Selth
Weintraub
& Selth, APC
12121
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los
Angeles,
California
The post was migrated from Yahoo.