Walton v. Smith (In Re Smith)

229 B.R. 895, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 2323, 1997 WL 1073951
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedAugust 26, 1997
Docket18-41458
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 229 B.R. 895 (Walton v. Smith (In Re Smith)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walton v. Smith (In Re Smith), 229 B.R. 895, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 2323, 1997 WL 1073951 (Ga. 1997).

Opinion

ORDER

JOHN S. DALIS, Chief Judge.

Dennis and Vicki Smith filed this case under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Code. The United States Trustee (hereinafter “Trustee”) moves to dismiss the case, alleging that the Debtors filed the petition in bad faith and that the filing constitutes a substantial abuse of the bankruptcy provisions. The motion is granted.

The Debtors are both self employed real estate agents. Schedule of Debtor’s petition list gross monthly income from the operation of their business of $9,600.00, less business expenses of $5,403.00, for net monthly before tax income of $4,197.00. The business expenses included a $571.00 lease payment on a 1996 Lexus automobile. The Debtors entered this luxury automobile lease in April of 1996, three months prior to filing this case. The Debtors admitted that at the time they entered the lease, they were experiencing severe financial difficulties. Furthermore, Mr. Smith admitted that he entered into the lease by “rolling over” a lease of a 1993 Lexus with one year remaining. In Schedule I of their petition, the Debtors listed combined gross monthly income of $4,197.00 ($50,364.00 per year) less payroll deductions totaling $1,332.92 plus other income of $200.00 for a net monthly income of $3,064.08. The Debtors have underestimated their actual income. For the two years prior to the filing of this case (1994 & 1995), the Debtors claimed on their tax returns total income of $70,573.00 and $81,842.00. These figures are significantly greater than the $50,364.00 ($4,197.00 x 12 = $50,364.00) gross monthly income listed in Schedule I. In 1995, the Debtors claimed on their tax returns gross business income of $136,229.00 less business expenses of $68,172.00 for net business income of $68,057.00. Additionally *897 in 1995 the Debtors claimed additional income of $2,516.00, for total net pre-tax income of $70,573.00. After taxes of $14,-990.00, the Debtors’ net disposable income for 1995 totaled $55,583.00.

In their schedules, the Debtors claim current gross business income of only $115,-200.00 ($9,600.00 x 12 = $115,200.00) for the year 1996. Mr. Smith initially testified that the actual gross business income totaled $139,500.00, but under cross examination by the Trustee admitted that the actual gross income for the business totaled $152,635.00 for 1996, an average of $12,719.58 a month ($152.635.00 - 12 = $12,719.58). The Debtors schedules list monthly business expenses of $5,403.00, but Mr. Smith testified that he believed the average monthly business expenses actually equaled $7,989.00. Mr. Smith contends that the business expenses for October thru December averaged just under $8,000.00, and that these expenses represented “average” months. However, Mr. Smith also testified that in the months of January thru March they greatly reduced their advertising expenses due to the slow cyclical market. I find that the Debtors’ scheduled business expense underestimated their actual business expenses, but that the level of expenses asserted at hearing overstates them actual business expenses. I find that their actual business expenses average $6,000.00 a month. The Debtors’ monthly net income from business therefore totals $6,719.58 ($12,719.58 - $6,000.00 $6,719.58). Adding their scheduled additional income of $200.00 per month leaves the Debtors before-tax monthly income of $6,919.50. The Debtors scheduled payroll deductions of $666.46, but given the increased income listed, that figure also should be increased. I find that a reasonable payroll deduction for taxes should total $2,000.00, leaving net after-tax income of $4,919.50.

In Schedule J, personal living expenses, the Debtors listed the following:

Mortgage payment (excluding taxes and insurance) $1695.00
Utilities 375.00
Home Maintenance 150.00
Food 450.00
Clothing 150.00
Laundry & Dry Cleaning 45.00
Medical & Dental 100.00
Transportation 140.00
Recreation, clubs 50.00
Charitable Contributions 50.00
Health Ins. 100.00
Car Payments 143.00
Home Owners’ Dues 16.67
IRS 500.00
Ga. Dept, of Rev. 100.00
TOTAL $4064.67

The Debtors also listed secured debt of $207,806.00, tax debts of $19,300.00, and general unsecured debt of $79,165.96, the unsecured debt is exclusively credit card obligations.

The Trustee moves to dismiss the Debtors’ ease under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) & (b) 1 . The list of circumstances in which a court may dismiss a case “for cause” under § 707(a) is non-exclusive, and includes the requirement that a debtor’s petition be filed in good faith. In re Zick, 931 F.2d 1124 (6th Cir.1991). Good faith must be determined on a case-by-case basis considering whether the provisions, purpose or spirit of the bankruptcy laws have been abused. In re Sky Group Int'l., 108 B.R. 86, 90 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1989). Once the movant puts the debtor’s good faith at issue, the debtor has the burden of establishing good faith. In re Frisch, 76 B.R. 801, 804 (Bankr.D.Colo.1987); In re Hammonds, *898 139 B.R. 535 (Bankr.D.Colo.1992). Bad faith can be established, inter alia, by a debtor’s failure to significantly reduce his or her current lifestyle to pay creditors. In re Bush, Ch. 7 Case No. 93-10771, slip op. (Bankr.S.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 1993 Davis, J.), citing, In re Zick, 931 F.2d at 1128. Section 707(b) allows a court to dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor owing primarily consumer debts if granting the debtor relief would be a substantial abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7. Under § 707(b), the Trustee carries the burden of establishing substantial abuse, and the court should grant dismissal only where substantial abuse is clearly present.

The Trustee argues that the Debtors filed this petition in bad faith under § 707(a) because they failed to substantially reduce their expenses prior to the filing and because the filing is an attempt to preserve a standard of living above that which the Debtors can afford. I agree with the Trustee’s analysis. The Debtors listed the value of the home in their schedules as $203,000.00, but testified at hearing that the house was valued between $212,000.00 and $215,000.00. The Debtors argue that maintaining the $1,695.00 monthly mortgage payment does not indicate bad faith because the Debtors purchased the home in 1990 when the Debtors’ monthly income exceeded their current level. In 1990 Mr. Smith was employed by Greenfield Industries. The Debtor was terminated by Greenfield in 1993 and received a six month severance package. Mrs.

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

Related

Matthew H Callier
S.D. Georgia, 2023
In re Hardigan
490 B.R. 437 (S.D. Georgia, 2013)
In RE McKAY
463 B.R. 915 (S.D. Georgia, 2010)
In Re Tallman
397 B.R. 451 (N.D. Indiana, 2008)
In Re Schubert
384 B.R. 777 (S.D. Ohio, 2008)
In Re Linehan
326 B.R. 474 (D. Massachusetts, 2005)
Turner v. Johnson (In Re Johnson)
318 B.R. 907 (N.D. Georgia, 2005)
In Re Mooney
313 B.R. 709 (N.D. Ohio, 2004)
In Re Horan
304 B.R. 42 (D. Connecticut, 2004)
In Re Pedigo
296 B.R. 485 (S.D. Indiana, 2003)
In Re Engskow
247 B.R. 314 (M.D. Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 B.R. 895, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 2323, 1997 WL 1073951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-smith-in-re-smith-gasb-1997.