In Re Quarterman

342 B.R. 647, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 195, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 790, 2006 WL 1234902
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 28, 2006
Docket06-027-3P3
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 342 B.R. 647 (In Re Quarterman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Quarterman, 342 B.R. 647, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 195, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 790, 2006 WL 1234902 (Fla. 2006).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

GEORGE L. PROCTOR, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the Debtor’s Motion for Confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan and the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation. The Court held a hearing on March 2, 2006 and, at the conclusion, instructed the parties to submit memorandum of law in support of their respective positions. The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Paul Quarterman (the “Debtor”) filed a Chapter 13 petition on January 5, 2006. According to Form B22C and Schedule I, the Debtor listed $2,035.37 of gross monthly income and $1,745.34 of net monthly income. As for the Debtor’s spouse, the Debtor listed $2,166.67 of gross monthly income and $1,933.33 of net monthly income. Thus, the Debtor’s total income from all sources, including that of his spouse, is $4,202.04; the total net monthly income, including that of the Debtor’s spouse, is $3,678.67. The Debtor did not list on Form B22C the extent to which his spouse’s income was regularly applied toward household expenses.

The parties agreed that the Debtor’s currently monthly income is below the state median family income and that the Debtor’s applicable commitment period is three years.

On Schedule J, the Debtor listed monthly expenses of $2,510.00. The expenses on Schedule J do not reflect the secured claims that the Debtor is proposing to pay in his Chapter 13 plan. These claims total $452.00 per month.

At the confirmation hearing, the Debtor amended his plan payments to provide for the claims as filed. The Debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan provides no payments to unsecured claims. The Chapter 13 Trustee (the “Trustee”) objected to confirmation of the Debtor’s plan on the basis that the Debtor is not using disposable income to fund the plan. The Trustee did not raise an objection with respect to the Debtor’s expenses.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) became effective October 17, 2005. The Debtor filed the instant petition on January 5, 2006, therefore, BAPCPA applies. The Trustee objects to confirmation arguing that the Debtor is not contributing disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan. The Debtor contends, however, that he is not required to contribute disposable income to his plan and, in the alternative, argues that if he is required to contribute disposable income to the plan, then his non-filing spouse’s income should not be included in the disposable income calculation.

On October 17, 2005, BAPCPA amended certain provisions that address disposable income in Chapter 13. BAPCPA slightly modified section 1325(b)(1). It states “that all of the debtor’s projected disposable in *649 come to be received in the applicable commitment period ... will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (2005) (emphasis added)(emphasis reflecting change under BAPCPA). Congress also amended the definition of disposable income, in section 1325(b)(2), to state that disposable income means “current monthly income received by the debtor ... less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended — (A)(i) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor....” 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2) (2005)(emphasis added)(emphasis reflecting change under BAPCPA). 1 Additionally, Congress created an entirely new provision, section 1325(b)(3). It states that the “[a]mounts reasonably necessary to be expended under paragraph (2) [which defines disposable income] shall be determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 707(b)(2), if the debtor has current monthly income, when multiplied by 12, greater than ... [the state median family income].” This means that if a debtor’s current monthly income is above the state median family income (for the applicable number of household members), the Code requires that the “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” be determined under section 707(b), which lists the expenses adopted from the IRS for the means test analysis. If, however, the debtor’s current monthly income is below the state median family income, then the “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” shall be determined according to section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B).

In the present case, the parties agreed that the Debtor’s current monthly income falls below the state median family income. Consequently, the Debtor agues that he should not be required to contribute all of his disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan. In support of this position, the Debtor argues that, as a result of BAPC-PA, the Code now states that only debtors with current monthly income above the state median family income are required to contribute disposable income to the Chapter 13 plan. The Trustee, however, argues that although Congress amended the way in which a debtor’s reasonable and necessary expenses are determined, a debtor is still required to contribute all of his or her disposable income to the Chapter 13 plan.

The Court agrees with the Trustee. The amended Code still clearly requires “that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income ... be applied to make payments ... under the plan,” irrespective of the amount of the debtor’s current monthly income or the methodology for determining the debtor’s expenses. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1) (2005). If a debtor has current monthly income above the state median family income, then the “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” by the debtor are determined according to the amounts set forth in section 707(b). 2 If a debtor has current monthly income less than the state median family income, then the “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” by the Debtor are determined under section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B). 3 In *650 either scenario, the BAPCPA changes do not obviate the explicit requirement that a debtor use all of his or her disposable income to fund the plan. Therefore, the Debtor is required to contribute of all his - disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan.

Alternatively, the Debtor argues that if he is required to contribute disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan, his non-filing spouse’s income should not be included in the disposable income calculation. As a result, the Debtor will not have any disposable income to contribute.

Prior to BAPCPA, several courts addressed the issue of whether a debtor’s non-filing spouse’s income should be considered when determining whether all of a debtor’s disposable income is being applied to the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. The majority of courts have held that the court must consider the income of a non-debtor spouse in calculating the debtor’s disposable income. See In re Williamson, 296 B.R.

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

Related

In Re: Sloane A. Worth
S.D. New York, 2024
Daniel Eric Rickabaugh
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2021
In re Ladieu
548 B.R. 49 (D. Vermont, 2016)
In re Vinger
540 B.R. 782 (D. Colorado, 2015)
Ruskin v. Blackshear (Blackshear)
531 B.R. 711 (E.D. Michigan, 2015)
In re Abisso
490 B.R. 464 (D. Massachusetts, 2013)
In re Toxvard
485 B.R. 423 (D. Colorado, 2013)
In re Wise
476 B.R. 653 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Sturm v. United States Trustee
455 B.R. 130 (N.D. Ohio, 2011)
In Re Malewicz
457 B.R. 1 (E.D. New York, 2010)
In Re Waechter
439 B.R. 253 (D. Massachusetts, 2010)
In Re Vollen
426 B.R. 359 (D. Kansas, 2010)
In Re Trimarchi
421 B.R. 914 (N.D. Illinois, 2010)
In Re Justice
404 B.R. 506 (W.D. Arkansas, 2009)
In Re Crink
402 B.R. 159 (M.D. North Carolina, 2009)
In Re Johnson
400 B.R. 639 (N.D. Illinois, 2009)
In Re Stansell
395 B.R. 457 (D. Idaho, 2008)
In Re Rush
387 B.R. 26 (W.D. Missouri, 2008)
In Re Lipford
397 B.R. 320 (M.D. North Carolina, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
342 B.R. 647, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 195, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 790, 2006 WL 1234902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-quarterman-flmb-2006.