Well, you have a split of authority on over median income with nominal or zero B22C disposable income (DI). Most judges in LA & SV will require 60 months of PDI (using the higher of I-J and B22C DI paid into the Plan Base NOT just to the general unsecured creditor class, see In re Pak. Garcia v. Dockery is still out with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the meaning of ACP and PDI (8th month anniversary since oral argument was 8/17/08).
Note: eCast recently objected to my over median income client's 60 months Plan proposing PDI = I-J arguing that the Plan did not pay the full B22C DI figure to the general unsecured class, Judge KT will hear my client's In re Pak defense that she only needs to pay I-J on May 5, 2008.
The dispute is essential over the Trustee wanting the debtor to pay the higher of I-J and B22C DI * ACP, whereas the debtor wants to pay only B22C * ACP (without a plan duration requirement) up to the maximum of I-J * 60 (no prohibition against confirmation where committing all foreseeable I-J DI for maximum duration).
"Hale Andrew Antico, Esq." wrote:
Thanks, Peter. And of course, if over median but B22 shows that the presumption does NOT apply and they elect to do a Chapter 13, it's also 36 months (with your stipulation below)... Appreciate it!
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:33 PM
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 36 month Chap 13
36 maximum for general unsecured debt if under median, but up to 60 if need to pay priority unsecured tax debt (must pay in full).
"Hale Andrew Antico, Esq." wrote: Simple question - If debtor is below median but wants to pay back in a Chapter 13, is it 36 months regardless of %age to unsecured creditors? Or must it be 60 months if the class 5s get < 100%?
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Well, you have a split of authority on over median income with nominal or zero B22C disposable income (DI). Most judges in LA & SV will require 60 months of PDI (using the higher of I-J and B22C DI paid into the Plan Base NOT just to the general unsecured creditor class, see In re Pak. Garcia v. Dockery is still out with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the meaning of ACP and PDI (8th month anniversary since oral argument was 8/17/08). Note: eCast recently objected to my over median income client's 60 months Plan proposing PDI = I-J arguing that the Plan did not pay the full B22C DI figure to the general unsecured class, Judge KT will hear my client's In re Pak defense that she only needs to pay I-J on May 5, 2008. The dispute is essential over the Trustee wanting the debtor to pay the higher of I-J and B22C DI * ACP, whereas the debtor
The post was migrated from Yahoo.