Todd Alan Folkerts, 22-00083

Debtor Todd Folkerts filed an individual Chapter 7 petition; he initially omitted his non‑filing spouse’s income on Form 122A‑1/122A‑2/Schedule I, then amended to include it.
The U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(B), arguing that pooling household income (including Wife’s earnings) shows ability to pay unsecured creditors.
The Means Test (Form 122‑B) produced a negative result, so statutory presumption of abuse under § 707(b)(2) did not arise.
The UST used IRS standard expenses to calculate ~ $2,900/month disposable household income available for a Chapter 13 plan; Folkerts argued his actual expenses are higher and non‑reducible.
The court found pooling requires subtracting the non‑filing spouse’s personal expenses before allocating household obligations; the court’s pro rata calculation yielded only $81–$106/month disposable income attributable to Folkerts.
The court concluded the UST did not meet its burden to prove abuse under § 707(b)(3) and denied the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether case constitutes abuse under § 707(b)(3) totality (ability to pay)	Pool household income/expenses using IRS standards shows meaningful disposable income to pay creditors.	Actual household expenses (higher than IRS standards) leave virtually no disposable income; Means Test negative.	No abuse found; UST failed to prove by preponderance.
Whether non‑filing spouse’s income is pooled without deduction for her personal expenses	Pooling should treat household as unit and apply IRS standards to spouse’s income.	Spouse’s personal obligations must be deducted first so contribution does not force her to tighten belt.	Court requires deducting non‑debtor spouse’s personal expenses before pro rata allocation.
Whether prepetition transactions (loans, transfers, purchases) show bad faith/abuse	Multiple recent loans, transfers, purchases (vehicle, hot tub, payments) indicate manipulation to avoid creditors.	Transactions were exemption planning or unwise but not dispositive of abuse; some done on counsel’s advice.	Transactions did not prove bad faith or categorical abuse.
Whether speculative future events (annuity repayment, stepped‑up payments) should be counted in disposable income	Future plan adjustments or debt term changes could generate additional funds for creditors.	Such scenarios are speculative and cannot be relied on now.	Court rejected speculative adjustments as meaningful factors in current disposable‑income analysis.

In re Booker, 399 B.R. 662 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2009) (UST bears burden to prove abuse under § 707(b)(3) by preponderance)
In re Honkomp, 416 B.R. 647 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2009) (ability to pay is a primary consideration in totality analysis)
In re Gourley, 549 B.R. 210 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016) (totality inquiry is fact‑intensive and not limited to ability to pay)
In re Boatright, 414 B.R. 526 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2009) (discusses pooling spouse income and rationale for pooling)
In re Falke, 284 B.R. 133 (Bankr. D. Or. 2002) (pooling cannot force non‑filing spouse to sacrifice finances to pay debtor’s creditors)
In re Attanasio, 218 B.R. 180 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1998) (Congress did not intend § 707(b) to reach non‑debtors)
In re Weixel, 494 B.R. 895 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2013) (totality review should reflect circumstances at time of hearing)