In Re Peterlin, 457 B.R. 630

Debtor Kelly Peterlin files Chapter 7 petition February 2, 2011; household of seven; spouses’ combined gross income around $110,000; mortgage on residence ~312k with large first mortgage; unsecured debt largely from husband's business judgment; private school tuition listed as expense; means test shows no presumption of abuse; UST seeks dismissal under §707(b)(1)/(b)(3) based on totality of circumstances.
Debtor intends to reaffirm mortgage, retain home valued at ~$312,600, and continue private school payments; Debtor’s husband employed in sales with stable income; tax refunds in past years substantial; petitioner argues private school and future income stability negate abuse.
The court must decide whether filing is abusive under §707(b); presumption of abuse did not arise; court considers totality of circumstances under §707(b)(3) to determine abuse.
Court recognizes standards for totality of circumstances from Krohn and Behlke; burden on UST to prove abuse by preponderance of the evidence; stability and level of income weigh against abuse, but housing cost and private school expenditures favor abuse; court grants motion to dismiss.
The case concludes with dismissal of Debtor’s Chapter 7 petition as abusive under §707(b)(1) and (b)(3); UST motion granted; Debtor’s objection overruled; costs allocated to respective parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether totality of circumstances shows abuse under §707(b)(3)	UST argues Debtor’s high home value and private school payments show abuse	Peterlin argues no abuse; income stability and needs support private school choice	Abuse established; case dismissed under §707(b)(1) and (b)(3)

In re Krohn, 886 F.2d 123 (6th Cir. 1989) (guides totality of circumstances factors for abuse dismissal)
Behlke v. Eisen, 358 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2004) (totality of circumstances guidance in §707(b) cases)
In re Wadsworth, 383 B.R. 330 (Bankr.N.D. Ohio 2007) (high housing costs can indicate abuse)