Jacob Benjamin Dumas, 608 B.R. 902

Background

Debtor Jacob B. Dumas filed a Chapter 13 petition on August 4, 2018 and agreed to pay his bankruptcy attorney $4,500.
Debtor is an above‑median income filer; above‑median debtors calculate projected disposable income (PDI) using the § 707(b)(2) means test via Official Form 122C‑2.
Debtor listed $4,500 attorney’s fees as a priority‑claim deduction on amended Form 122C‑2, reducing his PDI and proposed minimum payments to nonpriority unsecured creditors.
Trustee objected: Form 122C‑2 and § 707(b)(2) do not permit deducting chapter 13 attorney’s fees; alternatively, Trustee argued attorney’s fees are not a prepetition “creditor” for the PDI pot.
The court held that allowed chapter 13 attorney’s fees are administrative expenses entitled to priority under § 507(a)(2) and may be deducted under § 707(b)(2)(A)(iv) in calculating PDI; Trustee’s objection was overruled and confirmation conditioned on correcting Form 122C‑2.

Issues

Issue	Debtor's Argument	Trustee's Argument	Held
Whether chapter 13 attorney’s fees may be deducted when calculating PDI for an above‑median debtor (means test)	Attorney’s fees are allowed administrative expenses entitled to priority and therefore fall within “priority claims” deductible under § 707(b)(2)(A)(iv)	Official Form 122C‑2 and the means‑test structure exclude chapter 13 attorney’s fees; “priority claims” should not include administrative expenses	Court: Attorney’s fees are claims entitled to priority under § 507(a)(2) and may be deducted under § 707(b)(2)(A)(iv); Form 122C‑2 does not control over the Code; Debtor must amend the form
Whether attorney’s fees may instead be paid from the PDI “pot” (treating attorney as an unsecured creditor paid before nonpriority unsecured creditors)	If not deductible in the means test, attorney is an unsecured creditor and may be paid from the PDI pot before nonpriority unsecured creditors	“Unsecured creditors” in § 1325(b)(1)(B) should be limited to nonpriority unsecured creditors; allowing a pot deduction risks double counting or conflicts with the Code/forms	Court did not need to decide the pot deduction generally; rejected any result that would permit double counting—priority claims may be counted once only

Key Cases Cited

Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 562 U.S. 61 (Supreme Court) (means‑test deductions require actual incurred expenses to be "reasonably necessary")
U.S. v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court) (statutory language controls when plain)
Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (Supreme Court) (PDI/Hamilton flexible approach to unusual circumstances in plan calculations)
In re Williams, 394 B.R. 550 (Bankr. D. Colo.) (holds § 707(b)(2)(A)(iv) includes attorney’s fees as deductible priority claims)
In re Puetz, 370 B.R. 386 (Bankr. D. Kan.) (endorses paying certain priority claims from the PDI pot to avoid inconsistent results)
In re Echemen, 378 B.R. 177 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio) (permits deduction/payment of attorney’s fees in PDI context)
In re McDonald, 361 B.R. 527 (Bankr. D. Mont.) (construes “unsecured creditors” to avoid double counting priority claims)
In re Wilbur, 344 B.R. 650 (Bankr. D. Utah) (limits pot deduction where it would double count priority claims)
In re Amato, 366 B.R. 348 (Bankr. D. N.J.) (refused deduction based on Official Form 122C‑2, dissent from majority view)
In re Gonzalez, 597 B.R. 133 (Bankr. D. Colo.) (criticizes Official Forms that conflict with the Code)
In re Hanson, 223 B.R. 775 (Bankr. D. Or.) (attorney’s fees are administrative expenses entitled to priority)
In re Cornelison, 202 B.R. 991 (D. Kan.) (postconfirmation attorneys’ fees can be priority administrative claims)
In re Busetta‑Silvia, 314 B.R. 218 (B.A.P. 10th Cir.) (attorney’s fees are administrative expenses allowed under §503 and entitled to priority)
Drummond v. Wiegand (In re Wiegand), 386 B.R. 238 (9th Cir. BAP) (when Official Form conflicts with Code, the Code controls)