In Re Quarterman
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Proctor
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
GEORGE L. PROCTOR, Bankruptcy Judge.This case is before the Court upon the Debtor’s Motion for Confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan and the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation. The Court held a hearing on March 2, 2006 and, at the conclusion, instructed the parties to submit memorandum of law in support of their respective positions. The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Paul Quarterman (the “Debtor”) filed a Chapter 13 petition on January 5, 2006. According to Form B22C and Schedule I, the Debtor listed $2,035.37 of gross monthly income and $1,745.34 of net monthly income. As for the Debtor’s spouse, the Debtor listed $2,166.67 of gross monthly income and $1,933.33 of net monthly income. Thus, the Debtor’s total income from all sources, including that of his spouse, is $4,202.04; the total net monthly income, including that of the Debtor’s spouse, is $3,678.67. The Debtor did not list on Form B22C the extent to which his spouse’s income was regularly applied toward household expenses.
The parties agreed that the Debtor’s currently monthly income is below the state median family income and that the Debtor’s applicable commitment period is three years.
On Schedule J, the Debtor listed monthly expenses of $2,510.00. The expenses on Schedule J do not reflect the secured claims that the Debtor is proposing to pay in his Chapter 13 plan. These claims total $452.00 per month.
At the confirmation hearing, the Debtor amended his plan payments to provide for the claims as filed. The Debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan provides no payments to unsecured claims. The Chapter 13 Trustee (the “Trustee”) objected to confirmation of the Debtor’s plan on the basis that the Debtor is not using disposable income to fund the plan. The Trustee did not raise an objection with respect to the Debtor’s expenses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) became effective October 17, 2005. The Debtor filed the instant petition on January 5, 2006, therefore, BAPCPA applies. The Trustee objects to confirmation arguing that the Debtor is not contributing disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan. The Debtor contends, however, that he is not required to contribute disposable income to his plan and, in the alternative, argues that if he is required to contribute disposable income to the plan, then his non-filing spouse’s income should not be included in the disposable income calculation.
On October 17, 2005, BAPCPA amended certain provisions that address disposable income in Chapter 13. BAPCPA slightly modified section 1325(b)(1). It states “that all of the debtor’s projected disposable in
In the present case, the parties agreed that the Debtor’s current monthly income falls below the state median family income. Consequently, the Debtor agues that he should not be required to contribute all of his disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan. In support of this position, the Debtor argues that, as a result of BAPC-PA, the Code now states that only debtors with current monthly income above the state median family income are required to contribute disposable income to the Chapter 13 plan. The Trustee, however, argues that although Congress amended the way in which a debtor’s reasonable and necessary expenses are determined, a debtor is still required to contribute all of his or her disposable income to the Chapter 13 plan.
The Court agrees with the Trustee. The amended Code still clearly requires “that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income . . . be applied to make payments . . . under the plan,” irrespective of the amount of the debtor’s current monthly income or the methodology for determining the debtor’s expenses.
Alternatively, the Debtor argues that if he is required to contribute disposable income to his Chapter 13 plan, his non-filing spouse’s income should not be included in the disposable income calculation. As a result, the Debtor will not have any disposable income to contribute.
Prior to BAPCPA, several courts addressed the issue of whether a debtor’s non-filing spouse’s income should be considered when determining whether all of a debtor’s disposable income is being applied to the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. The majority of courts have held that the court must consider the income of a non-debtor spouse in calculating the debtor’s disposable income.
See In re Williamson,
296 B.R. 760, 764 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2003)(stating that the failure to consider the impact of the non-debtor spouse’s income would leave the debtor’s unsecured creditors to subsidize the spouse’s expenses);
In re McNichols,
249 B.R. 160, 170 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2000)(stating that the totality of the family’s income is appropriately considered in calculating a debtor’s disposable income);
In re Ehret,
238 B.R. 85, 88 (Bankr.D.N.J.1999)(stating that the inclusion of a non-debtor spouse’s income is appropriate when determining a debtor’s disposable income);
but see In re Nahat,
278 B.R. 108, 114 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2002)(stating that
However, as stated previously, Congress amended the definition of disposable income, in
In calculating a debtor’s disposable income, it is necessary to start with the debtor’s current monthly income, which is the debtor’s average (gross) monthly income for the previous six months, plus amounts others, i.e. the debtor’s non-filing spouse in a single case, regularly contributed to household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s dependants, less other (non-applicable) exclusions,
7
and reduce from it the following amounts:
8
(1) income that is included in current monthly income that was not “received” by the debtor;
9
(2) “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” by the debtor, whether under
In determining the Debtor’s disposable income in the instant case, it is necessary to reduce the Debtor’s current monthly income by the amount of income that the Debtor did not receive. Therefore, the amount that the Debtor paid in taxes is subtracted from the Debtor’s current monthly income.
14
However, the Debtor did not accurately state the amount of his current monthly income; he did not list on Form B22C the extent to which his
The parties agreed that the Debtor’s current monthly income falls below the state median family income; therefore, the Debtor’s “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” are determined under
The burden is on the objecting party, here the Trustee, to provide satisfactory evidence in order for the Court to make a decision.
See In re Heath,
182 B.R. 557, 561 (9th Cir. BAP 1995)(eiting
Notes
. A discussion of the significance of “current monthly income” in the disposable income analysis is discussed infra.
.
.The calculation of expenses for debtors with current monthly income below the state median family income is substantially similar to the expense calculation under the prior law. The amounts listed in
. The Court presumes “current monthly income” to be a debtor‘s gross income less the stated exclusions, notwithstanding the language “income from all sources that the debt- or receives.”
See
. Current monthly income excludes “benefits received under the Social Security Act, payments to victims of war crimes or crimes against humanity on account of their status as victims of such crimes, and payments to victims of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of title 18) or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of title 18) on account of their status as victims of such terrorism.” See
. Problems may arise with respect to determining the non-debtor spouse’s contribution to household expenses. If the family maintains joint accounts, it may be difficult to determine what part of the income of the non-debtor spouse is used for household expenses and what part is used for that spouse’s personal expenses or investments. See Eugene R. Wedoff, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Illinois, Means Testing in the New § 707(b), 79 Am. Bankr.L.J. 231 (2005).
. See supra note 5 for the exclusions to current monthly income.
. See 8 Cottier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1325.08[5][a],[b] and [c] (15th ed. rev.2005).
.
See
.
See
. See 1325(b)(2).
. See section 1322(f).
. See section 541(b)(7).
. See supra note 9.
. On Form B22C, Part III, line 19, if a debtor is married but not filing jointly, the debtor is required to list the amount of his or her spouse’s income that was regularly contributed to the household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s dependants. However, due to one of the many problems of this Form, a debtor is instructed not to fill out Part III if the debtor’s current monthly income is less than the state median family income. Consequently, debtors with annualized gross income less than the state median family income are instructed not to enter the amount (on line 19) necessary to determine the extent to which a debtor’s non-filing spouse regularly contributed to the household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s depen-dants.
. The Trustee did not object to any of the Debtor’s expenses.