In re Hernandez

588 B.R. 186
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedJune 18, 2018
DocketCASE NO: 17-10473
StatusPublished

This text of 588 B.R. 186 (In re Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Hernandez, 588 B.R. 186 (Tex. 2018).

Opinion

Eduardo V. Rodriguez, United States Bankruptcy Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."1 As a matter of first impression, the question before this Court is whether an above-median income earner must, on Official Form 122C-2, account for his actual monthly rent expense in calculating *187his net rent expense for purposes of determining his monthly disposable income.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

This Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, and 9014. To the extent that any Finding of Fact constitutes a Conclusion of Law, it is adopted as such. To the extent that any Conclusion of Law constitutes a Finding of Fact, it is adopted as such.

On December 21, 2017, Felipe Hernandez ("Debtor ") filed his chapter 13 petition. ECF No. 1. Along with the petition, Debtor filed his Official Forms 122C-1 and 122C-2, otherwise known as the Means Test. ECF No. 4. As determined by the Means Test, the applicable commitment period is 5 years and the monthly disposable income was listed as $310.20. Id. Additionally, Debtor filed his Uniform Plan and Motion for Valuation of Collateral which proposed sixty monthly payments in the amount of $350.00 and an estimated 4.35% dividend to the general unsecured class of creditors or $6,678.91. ECF No. 2. Finally, Debtor listed a $600.00 rental or home ownership expense on Schedule J and a monthly net income of $353.95. ECF No. 1

On March 6, 2018 the Court conducted a hearing on confirmation at which time the Court, sua sponte , questioned Debtor's counsel regarding several entries on the Means Test and reset confirmation to April 4, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, Debtor amended his Schedule I and J, which indicates an increased net disposable income of $403.95. ECF No. 29 at 5. Additionally, Debtor filed an amended Means Test which lists $678.00 on Line 9a as the local standard for mortgage or rent expenses. ECF No. 32. However, on Line 9b, Debtor does not list any payments as "total average monthly payment for all mortgages and other debts secured by your home." Id. Thus, Debtor's current listed "net mortgage or rent expense" on Line 9c is $678.00. Id. As a result, Debtor's monthly disposable income is calculated to be $82.11. Id. at 10. Additionally, on March 19, 2018, Debtor filed an amended Uniform Plan and Motion for Valuation of Collateral ("Plan "), which proposes three monthly payments in the amount of $350.00 and fifty seven monthly payments in the amount of $400.00 with an estimated 9.24% dividend or $5,211.17 available for unsecured creditors. ECF No. 30.

On April 4, 2018, this Court held a hearing on confirmation of Debtor's Plan in which the Chapter 13 Trustee ("Trustee ") recommended confirmation. This Court questioned Debtor's Counsel and Trustee as to whether Debtor is required to list his monthly rent on Line 9b of Form 122C-2 and ordered briefing on the issue. On May 3, 2018, Debtor and Trustee submitted a joint brief in support of confirmation, which argued that Form 122C-2 does not require Debtor to list his rent on Line 9b because it is not a mortgage or debt secured by his home. ECF No. 39. Briefing has now closed and the matter is ripe for consideration.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction & Venue

This Court holds jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, which provides "the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11." Section 157 allows a district court to "refer" all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) ; see also In re: Order of Reference to Bankruptcy Judges, *188Gen. Order 2012-6 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2012). This is a core matter as it concerns confirmation of Debtor's Plan. § 157(b)(2)(L) ; see also In Re Southmark Corp. , 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999).2

This Court may only hear a case in which venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1408. Debtor resides in San Benito, Texas. ECF No. 1 at 2. Therefore, venue is proper.

B. Constitutional Authority to Enter a Final Order

This Court has an independent duty to evaluate whether it has the constitutional authority to sign a final order. Stern v. Marshall , 564 U.S. 462, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011). But see Wellness Int'l Network v. Sharif , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1938-39, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) (holding that parties may consent to jurisdiction on non-core matters). Plan confirmation "is a quintessential issue created by federal bankruptcy law," and thus, this Court possesses the constitutional authority to enter a final order confirming Debtor's plan. See In re Villarreal , 566 B.R. 859, 866 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1692, 191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015) ).

C. Rent Payments are not Included on Line 9b of Form 122C-2.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Southmark Corp. v. Coopers & Lybrand
163 F.3d 925 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
Demarest v. Manspeaker
498 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Duncan v. Walker
533 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 2001)
TRW Inc. v. Andrews
534 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Stern v. Marshall
131 S. Ct. 2594 (Supreme Court, 2011)
In Re Hardacre
338 B.R. 718 (N.D. Texas, 2006)
In Re Lively
467 B.R. 884 (S.D. Texas, 2012)
Yates v. United States
135 S. Ct. 1074 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank
575 U.S. 496 (Supreme Court, 2015)
In re Raygoza
556 B.R. 813 (S.D. Texas, 2016)
In re Sierra
560 B.R. 296 (S.D. Texas, 2016)
In re Villarreal
566 B.R. 859 (S.D. Texas, 2017)
In re Lopez
574 B.R. 159 (E.D. California, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
588 B.R. 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hernandez-txsb-2018.