Venitia Dawn Moreno

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico
DecidedDecember 7, 2023
Docket22-10886
StatusUnknown

This text of Venitia Dawn Moreno (Venitia Dawn Moreno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Venitia Dawn Moreno, (N.M. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO In re: VENITIA DAWN MORENO, No. 22-10886-j13 Debtor. MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Chapter 13 Trustee (“Trustee”) objects to confirmation of Debtor’s chapter 13 plan on the ground that the plan fails to satisfy the projected disposable income requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).1 More specifically, the Trustee objects that Debtor, whose current monthly income is above the median income for a family of the same size, is not entitled to deduct the entire amount of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Local Standard for Housing and Utilities2 in computing disposable income because she is not obligated on a home mortgage, and her fiancé pays the entire mortgage expense for the home where they jointly reside (the “Threshold Legal Issue”).3 Debtor asserts that she is entitled to deduct the entire amount of the IRS Local Standard for Housing and Utilities.

At a status conference on plan confirmation held July 18, 2023, the parties asked the Court to decide the Threshold Legal Issue on stipulated facts. With the consent of the parties, the Court entered an order directing Debtor and the Trustee to file stipulated facts and simultaneous briefs on the Threshold Legal Issue. Debtor and the Trustee subsequently filed a Statement of

1 All future statutory references in this Memorandum Opinion are to title 11 of the United States Code, unless otherwise specified. Title 11 of the United States Code is referred to as the “Bankruptcy Code” or simply the “Code.” All cited websites were last visited on December 4, 2023. 2 The IRS Local Standard for Housing and Utilities is sometimes referred to as the “Housing and Utilities Standard.” 3 The Trustee argues, in the alternative, that if the Court rules that Debtor is entitled to the entire IRS Local Standard for Housing and Utilities deduction, the amount of the fiancé’s mortgage payment should be included in Debtor’s current monthly income and her fiancé should be included in her household size. Stipulated Facts (“Stipulated Facts” – Doc. 39) and simultaneous briefs (Docs. 36 and 38) relating to the Threshold Legal Issue. The Court has considered the parties’ positions in light of the Stipulated Facts and applicable law. The Court concludes that Debtor may deduct the entire amount the IRS has specified for the Local Standard for Housing and Utilities in the applicable locality in computing

disposable income even though she has no liability for a home mortgage, she does not pay any home mortgage expenses, and the only expenses she pays in the Housing and Utilities category are for cell phone service and seasonal fuel costs. STIPULATED FACTS4 Debtor and the Trustee have stipulated to the following facts only for purposes of the Court deciding the Threshold Legal Issue: 1. Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 31, 2023. 2. On the same date, Debtor filed her Schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs, Forms

122C-1 and 122C-2, and Chapter 13 plan. 3. Debtor’s household size is two, consisting of Debtor and her 26-year-old daughter. 4. Debtor has been engaged to her fiancé for five years and they have lived together for ten years. No date is set for the wedding. 5. Debtor’s fiancé is not included as a member of Debtor’s household for purposes of the bankruptcy.

4 The entirety of the Statement of Stipulated Facts (Doc. 39) is incorporated herein by reference. The Court re-states in this Memorandum Opinion those the facts contained in the Statement of Stipulated Facts necessary to resolve the Threshold Legal Issue. 6. Debtor’s fiancé’s income was not included in Debtor’s original Form 122C-1, Schedule I, or amended Form 122C-1. 7. Debtor’s average monthly income for the six-month period prior to the filing of the voluntary petition was $8,802.07.

8. Debtor’s current monthly income for the year equates to $105,624.84. 9. The median family income for a two-person household is $60,728.00. 10. Debtor is an above-median-income debtor. 11. Debtor’s fiancé pays the mortgage, which is escrowed for both taxes and insurance, in the monthly amount of $1,300.00. 12. Debtor’s fiancé pays all utilities, including electricity, gas, propane, water and sewer averaging $300.00 monthly. Debtor does not contribute to these expenses. 13. Debtor pays the monthly household cellular telephone expenses in the average amount of $450.00. The cellphone expense includes cellphones and Apple Watches for Debtor,

her daughter, and her fiancé. 14. In the winter months, Debtor pays for pellets used in a pellet stove that Debtor and her fiancé use to decrease gas and propane utilities costs. The pellet fuel costs $280.00 to $300.00 per month, which averages to approximately $25.00 per month over the year. Debtor’s fiancé does not contribute to that expense. 15. The Local Housing and Utilities Standard for a two-person household in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for cases filed between May 15, 2022, and October 31, 2022 was $1,804.00. 16. The Housing and Utilities Standard covers mortgage or rent, property taxes, interest, insurance, maintenance, repairs, gas, electric, water, heating oil, garbage collection, telephone (landline), cell phone, internet, and cable. 17. The amount of the Local Standard for Housing and Utilities, as used in Form 122C-2, is $599.00 for non-mortgage expenses (line 8) and $1,205.00 for mortgage/rent expenses (line 9).

18. Debtor’s Form 122C-2 includes a deduction for housing and utilities expenses (lines 8 and 9). 19. Debtor’s amended Form 122C-2 likewise includes a deduction for both housing and utilities expenses (lines 8 and 9). 20. Debtor’s projected disposable income on line 45 of Amended Form 122C-2 is negative $236.77. 21. Debtor’s sixty (60) month chapter 13 plan proposes to pay $0.00 to non-priority unsecured creditors. 22. If Debtor’s mortgage/rent and utility standard deductions were removed from

Amended Form 122C-2, Debtor’s projected disposable income on line 45 would be $1,567.23, which would result in $94,033.80 to be paid to non-priority unsecured creditors (93% of the amount owed to non-priority unsecured creditors). Jurisdiction, standing, and venue The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Trustee’s objection to confirmation of Debtor’s chapter 13 plan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and the order of reference contained in the Administrative Order entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico in Misc. No. 84-0324. This matter, which involves confirmation of a chapter 13 plan, is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2)(L). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. There is no doubt that Debtor has standing. The Trustee has statutory standing under § 1302(b)(2)(B) (which requires that the trustee appear and be heard at any hearing that concerns confirmation of a plan) and § 1325(b)(1)(B) (which requires a plan to provide for payment of

projected disposable income to unsecured creditors if the trustee or holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to plan confirmation).

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

Related

Hamilton v. Lanning
560 U.S. 505 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Hamilton v. Lanning (In Re Lanning)
545 F.3d 1269 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A.
131 S. Ct. 716 (Supreme Court, 2011)
In Re Liles
292 B.R. 138 (E.D. Texas, 2002)
In Re Hardacre
338 B.R. 718 (N.D. Texas, 2006)
In Re Anderson
383 B.R. 699 (S.D. Ohio, 2008)
Drummond v. Wiegand (In Re Wiegand)
386 B.R. 238 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
In Re Farrar-Johnson
353 B.R. 224 (N.D. Illinois, 2006)
In Re Morgan
374 B.R. 353 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
In Re Cluff
313 B.R. 323 (D. Utah, 2004)
Microf LLC v. Paul L. Cumbess
960 F.3d 1325 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)
In re Toxvard
485 B.R. 423 (D. Colorado, 2013)
In re Currie
537 B.R. 884 (C.D. Illinois, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Venitia Dawn Moreno, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venitia-dawn-moreno-nmb-2023.