In re Martin
464 B.R. 798
Bankr. C.D. Ill.2012Background
- Denise E. Martin is an above-median debtor in Chapter 13 with negative monthly disposable income on Form 22C.
- Form 22C line 17 indicates a 5-year applicable commitment period based on above-median status and historical income.
- Debtor's schedules show monthly income exceeds expenses by $150.01, but line 59 disposable income is -$146.03.
- Debtor proposed an amended plan paying $150 per month for 36 months to the Trustee.
- Creditor Brian Martin objects, arguing all above-median debtors must propose a 5-year plan and that pension/maintenance changes affect disposable income.
- The court must interpret ‘applicable commitment period’ and whether zero/negative projected disposable income alters the duration requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the applicable commitment period for above-median debtors? | Martin argues a 3-year period. | BrIan argues 5-year period applies to above-median debtors. | Five-year period required for above-median debtors. |
| Does negative line 59 affect the commitment period duration? | Martin claims negative disposable income allows a shorter period. | Brian contends no exception; duration remains five years. | Negative line 59 does not modify the 5-year requirement. |
| Is above/below median status determined by historical income or projected disposable income? | Martin contends loss of maintenance means not truly above-median now. | Brian emphasizes historical income controls above/below status. | Status determined by historical income under §101(10A); Hamilton does not apply to this determination. |
| Does the plan duration depend on post-confirmation changes or the plan’s stated term? | Martin suggests post-confirmation changes could shorten term. | Brian argues term fixed at confirmation; modification elsewhere. | Durational minimum fixed at confirmation; post-confirmation changes addressed by §1329, not duration. |
| Are there exceptions for negative disposable income other than full payment of unsecured claims? | Martin seeks exception for zero/negative disposable income. | Brian seeks no exception; five-year duration stays intact. | No unwritten exception; 5-year term applies regardless of negative disposable income. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2011) (supports categorical 5-year term for above-median debtors)
- In re Tennyson, 611 F.3d 873 (11th Cir. 2010) (confirms temporal 5-year requirement for above-median filers)
- In re Frederickson, 545 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2008) (addresses duration for above-median debtors)
- In re Kagenveama, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008) (confirms duration interpretation of applicable commitment period)
- Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010) (distinguishes forward-looking disposable income for plan payments from historical above/below status)
- In re Nance, 371 B.R. 358 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 2007) (endorses temporal interpretation of applicable commitment period)
- In re Davis, 439 B.R. 863 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) (distinguishes use of projection for plan modification vs. confirmation)