In Re Wise, 453 B.R. 220

Debtors filed Chapter 7 petition August 27, 2010; UST moved to dismiss for abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) based on presumption under § 707(b)(2) and totality under § 707(b)(3)(B).
UST符 said presumption arises; motion to dismiss timely challenged because § 704(b)(1)(A) statement was not filed within 10 days of first § 341 meeting.
Means test showed above-median income with planned 12% income increase; expenses and post-petition budget were scrutinized for disposable income.
Debtors relocated California to Vermont in 2010; incurred relocation costs and housing/housing-utilities expenses; Debtors purchased a second vehicle and adjusted housing due to income loss.
Court conducted an evidentiary hearing; analyzed income, expenses, and mitigating factors under Kornfield and related Second Circuit/BAPCPA standards; concluded no abuse and denied motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the §704(b)(1)(A) statement	UST: statement may be filed any time up to 10 days after 341 conclusion.	Debtors: statement due within 10 days after initial 341 meeting date (Oct 6, 2010).	Time-barred; presumption dismissed.
Whether totality of the circumstances shows abuse under §707(b)(3)	UST: combined factors/ability to pay and mitigating factors indicate abuse.	Debtors: substantial changes post-employment loss; no substantial payment ability; no bad faith; mitigated factors present.	No abuse; factors do not demonstrate abuse; motion to dismiss denied.

In re Kornfield, 164 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 1999) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for §707(b)(3))
In re Fitzgerald, 418 B.R. 778 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2009) (two-part test: ability to pay then mitigating/aggravating factors)
In re Colgate, 370 B.R. 50 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2007) (applies Kornfield framework in §707(b)(3))
In re Close, 353 B.R. 915 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2006) (timing of §704(b)(1)(A) statement)
In re Clark, 393 B.R. 578 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008) (timeliness of §704(b)(1)(A) – alternative view)