523 B.R. 804
Bankr. S.D. Ill.2014Background
- Debtor Lisa Ann Early filed for Chapter 13 relief; her income exceeds Illinois median for her household size.
- Debtor's Form B22C shows current monthly income and means-test deductions; line 59 indicates monthly disposable income of $815.53.
- Debtor proposes $158 monthly payments to unsecured creditors over a 60-month plan.
- Trustee objects under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), arguing debtor must contribute $815.53 monthly to unsecured creditors.
- Debtor argues, citing Hamilton v. Lanning, that deviations from B22C are allowed if actual expenses exceed deductions.
- Court must decide whether above-median debtors may deviate from Form B22C to reflect actual expenses; trustee’s objection is sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deviations from B22C are permissible for projected disposable income. | Early; argues Lanning allows deviation due to actual expenses exceeding deductions. | Grandy; argues B22C should be binding absent unusual circumstances. | Deviation not allowed; plan must apply B22C-based disposable income. |
| Whether unusual-change exceptions from Lanning apply when no change in finances is shown. | Early contends no change is needed for exception. | Grandy argues no unusual change present; exception not triggered. | Unusual-change exception not applicable; no departure from B22C. |
| Effect of Ransom on the use of IRS standards in projected disposable income. | Early asserts Ransom supports broader consideration of actual expenses. | Grandy rejects expansive reading; Ransom confirms B22C framework. | Ransom does not permit bypassing Form B22C; still bound by means test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (2010) (forward-looking approach permitted in unusual cases with known changes)
- Ransom v. FIA Card Services, 131 S. Ct. 716 (2011) (limits on 'applicable' expenses; supports B22C framework)
- In re Scott, 457 B.R. 740 (2011) (no departure from Form B22C absent change in finances)
- Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 (2011) (taxed by calls for fixed standards; reduces judicial discretion)
- In re Nance, 371 B.R. 358 (2007) (objective standards to eliminate discretionary means-testing)
- In re Jass, 340 B.R. 411 (2006) (preference for B22C-based calculation in usual cases)
- In re Slusher, 359 B.R. 290 (2007) (significant value judgments in determining reasonable expenses)