Have I missed something? I thought it was the higher of I-J or Form 22C.
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
>
> I'm not sure when Lanning will be decided, but as someone who's practiced in
> a jurisdiction where they use "the other way" to interpret Kagenveama and
> determine disposable income, it's not fun. It squeezes the debtor and makes
> cases infeasible where they otherwise wouldn't be. It really changes your
> analysis of how the consultation goes, since the client only cares about the
> plan payment amount. Potential debtor wants reassurances that the PP will be
> doable, affordable, and reasonable. And all we can tell people in these
> cases is: "your PP is based on a formula; you may or may not be able to
> afford it. Let me work the B22 for you and get back to you."
>
> Lanning, if it comes down the "other way," is a game-changer in the
> fundamental practice of Chapter 13 law once you're accustomed to how we do
> it in the Central District of CA. Once we think it's coming down, might not
> a bad idea to have your 13s ready to file before the decision, unless you're
> a gamblin' man (or woman).
>
> Nancy is familiar with Kagenveama. I sat next to her during a CDCBAA
> MCLE... on the B22, if I recall. People shot questions to her and other
> trustees in attendance, and one of her answers specifically referenced the
> case.
>
> If NC is jumping onboard early and changing how she interprets Kagenveama
> based on the Supreme Court granting cert to Lanning, well, these are the
> events I was trying to inform when I sounded warning bells I back in June
> last year once I got a taste of 13s "other way." Hope this helps. Hale
>
>
> _____
>
> Amy Clark
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:40 PM
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: HELP -- related to this old thread: Re: [cdcbaa] Ch. 13 special
> circumstances
>
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I had understood that the plan payment in Chapter 13 was determined using I
> - J. That is the way I had done it before in Los Angeles and Riverside and
> no problems.
>
> Today, I had a 341 with NC and she explained that "there is this 9th circuit
> case" that states that 60 times line 59 on the means test is the amount that
> must be paid over the life of the plan. I asked if she meant Kagenveama and
> she just looked at me and blinked and said I needed to look over my
> analysis.
>
>
> As you probably figured out, in this case, I - J was a lot lower payment.
>
> Did CDCal change the way Chapter 13 plan payments are being determined? >
> -- Amy Clark Kleinpeter
>
> 1489 E. Colorado Blvd. #207
> Pasadena, CA 91106
> (626) 507-8090
>
> "Bankruptcy, Michael, is nature's do-over. It's a fresh start, a clean
> slate."
>
> "Like the witness protection program!"
>
> "Exactly."
>
>
>
> 2009/6/4 Hale Andrew Antico
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here, we use Kagenveama to help the debtors. In other places, it is used to
> hinder their confirmation.
>
> Take our neighbors to the north (no, not Canada). In the Eastern District,
> Chapter 13 Trustee Mike Meyer takes the position that Kagenveama requires
> the Class 5 unsecureds to get *at least* the amount of the Disposable Income
> on Form B22C, times 60 months (subtracting for administrative and attorney
> costs). In other words, if the B22 Disposable Income number is greater than
> "I - J" your plan won't work. I was informed that my plan was infeasible
> under Kagenveama, and the objection was forthcoming. (the particular plan
> has a large amount of Class 2 payments for arrearages, leaving unsecureds
> with less than ten percent).
>
> I will respond to his objection if he indeed files it, citing Pak, etc. I
> guess the interpretation of Kagenveama is far from settled. To my
> knowledge, no Central District judge interprets this case the way Mr. Meyer
> does... (has a trustee tested it as such here?)
>
> I'll let you know how it goes. My situation if/when it develops there might
> have some impact on us here.
> Hale
>
>
> _____
>
P
> L
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:54 PM
>
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Ch. 13 special circumstances
>
>
>
>
> You may be able to use In re Pak which has language regarding the debtor not
> being forced to pay more than she can afford. Arguably, Pak could still
> apply post Kagenveama since it deals with a positive B22C. This is an
> excerpt from a resposne to objection to plan confirmation (pre-Kagenveama),
> ecast ultimately withdrew its objection and the plan was confirmed at I - J.
>
>
> Here, Debtor's actual income and expenses, that is, the figures set forth on
> Schedules I and J, yield a total monthly disposable income figure that, once
> deductions are made for payment of administrative and priority expenses, is
> less than the amount provided in Amended Form B22C.4 Under Pak, the Court
> may make adjustments to initial projected disposable income figure in its
> discretion such that the Debtor is paying into her Plan as much as she can
> afford.
>
> Applying a more rigid interpretation of 11 U.S.C. 1325(b)(1)(B) as
> requiring the Form B22C disposable income figure to be received by only the
> general unsecured creditor class on these facts, as urged by eCast, would
> cause the inequitable result of prohibiting payment of the Debtor's actual
> reasonable living expenses, the actual administrative expenses of this case
> and would deny all creditors the opportunity for an orderly distribution of
> Debtor's actual foreseeable disposable income over the maximum plan duration
> of five years.
>
> Accordingly, the Court here is urged to confirm Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan
> based upon her actual disposable income as directed by Pak.
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Mark JM wrote:
>
>
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Ch. 13 special circumstances
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 11:45 AM
>
>
> How successful have any of you been arguing for a lower monthly plan payment
> than is indicated by the Form 22C disposable income test?
>
> Are the Trustees/Courts strictly adhering to whatever 22C says, or can you
> argue that the IRS living expense standards are insane, or that the debtor
> is paying more than court ordered child support, etc.?
>
> ************ ********* ****
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> Toll Free: 1-866-576-6275
> web:
http://www.bklaw. com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> _____
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of
> Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the
> use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.