Cases for Zip , California Northern District Bankruptcy Court

Ninth Circuit Cases

• In re Jensesn

Banrk. C.D.Cal - 407 B.R. 378 - 2009-04-28 - 7 ,

Court will not question amount of secured debt payments for hmotor ome and boat because debts were incurred two years prior to bankruptcy and appear not to have been incurred with an intent to defraud creditors, nor did the purchase make the debtor insolvent.. Also has a discussion of "ride through"

• In re Lamug

Bankr.N.D.Cal. - 403 B.R. 47 - 2009-02-18 - 7 , Above

"After making adjustments to Debtors expenses to only allow actual housing and Utility expenses, Debtors' actual monthly expenses total $4,051. Adjusting Debtors' withholding taxes as suggested by the UST and allowing Debtors to continue making their 401k deduction results in monthly income of approximately $7,368. Even with a 401k deduction, therefore, Debtors have approximately $3,317 in monthly disposable income which could be used to pay creditors.[6] This amount is substantial as Debtors could pay 100% of their unsecured debt in less than 28 months. Thus, the totality of the circumstances of Debtors' financial condition indicate that Debtors have an ability to repay their debts"

• In re Blausey (Blausey v. U.S. Trustee)

9th Cir. - 552 F.3d 1124 - 2009-01-23 - 7 , N/A

footnote 1: Section 707(b)(2) provides a means test by which bankruptcy courts determine whether a case is presumed to be an abuse of Chapter 7. If the case is presumed abusive, it will be dismissed unless the debtor shows "special circumstances" rebutting the presumption. 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(B)(I). If the presumption does not arise, the bankruptcy court may still find abuse under § 707(b)(3) based on the totality of the circumstances.

• In re Baeza

Bankr.E.D.Cal. - 398 B.R. 692 - 2008-12-29 - 7 , Above

“while the totality of all of the debtor's financial circumstances must be examined, the ability to pay a significant dividend to creditors and the failure to do so standing alone can be an abuse of chapter 7, absent mitigating factors.”; social security income may be considered as part of an assessment of an ability to pay under the totality of the circumstances test notwithstanding its express exclusion from CMI under the means test.

• In re McUne

Bankr.D.Or. - 358 B.R. 397 - 2006-12-19 - 7 , N/A

Where the presumption of abuse does not arise under § 707(b)(2), may the court nonetheless consider the debtor's ability to fund a chapter 13 plan of reorganization as part of a motion to dismiss under § 707(b)(3), based on the totality of the circumstances of debtor's financial situation?

• In re Pak

Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal. - 343 B.R. 239 - 2006-05-18 - 7 ,

Totality of circumstances; 707(b)(3);
denied a debtor the right to file Chapter 7 because the debtor was about to have a substantial increase in income.

• In re Smith

Bankr.D.Idaho - - - 7 ,

Abuse found under "totality of circumstances" where debtor's child support obligation would end in the middle of Chapter 13 plan, meaning he could pay 60,000 over the next five years.

Other Circuits

• Calhoun v U.S.Trustee

4th Cir. - 650 F.3d 338 (2011) - 2011-05-03 - ,

Means test non conclusive. Dismissal under 707(b)(3) appropriate where debtor has ability to pay, regardless of what means test shows. In this case most of income was retirement income and social security.

• In re Hornung

Bankr. M.D.N.C. - 425 BR 242 - 2010-03-11 - 7 ,

Debtors were above median income. Form B22 listed debtors' monthly disposable income as negative $571, so there was no presumption of abuse. However, the court found that debtors' filing a Chapter 7 closely after expensive purchases was in bad faith and abusive under Section 707(b) totality of the circumstances. Specifically, debtors bought a home they couldn't afford, two expensive cars, and a vacation timeshare, all on the eve of bankruptcy.

The court found, upon readjusting debtor's income and expenses to account for post-petition events, that debtors could fully repay their unsecured creditors through Chapter 13.

• In re Pfeiler

Bankr. N.D.Iowa - No. 09-02815 - 2010-03-10 - ,

Trustee moved to dismiss the case because debtors had reaffirmed debt on two ATV's ($175 per month, and used for snow removal). Trustee argued that these were recreational items that the creditors shouldn't be made to subsidize. However, the debtors amended their income and expenses (schedules I and J), and rescinded their affirmation agreement, so the court found that there was no longer any reason to dismiss the case under trustee's initial motion.

• In re Hunt

Bankr. E.D. Mich. - No. 09-61845-wsd - 2009-12-22 - 7 ,

The court found that even though debtors appeared to have extra income, under the totality of the circumstances (Section 707(b)(3)), the debtors nonetheless were not in a position to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

• In re Smith

Bankr.N.D.West Virgina - Case No. 09-691 - 2009-11-23 - 7 ,

debtor's ability to pay creditors relevant to 707(b)(3) totality of the circumstances analysis.

• In re Meurer

Bankr.N.D.Texas - Case No. 09-41446 - 2009-11-18 - 7 , Above

Debtor's gambling and luxury lifestyle indicate that choices could be made to repay debts.

• In re Dumas

E.D. Tex. - 419 B.R. 704 - 2009-11-17 - ,

A higher than average mortgage payment did not preclude debtor from filing a Chapter 7 (it was not abusive).

"In defining a future ability to pay for an above-median income debtor in a Chapter 13 context, §1325(b)(3) provides that: "Amounts reasonably necessary to be expended ... shall be determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 707(b)(2)...." Whether arising as a product of congressional intent or congressional blunder, §707(b)(2) fails to impose any limit on the amount of debt which can be legitimately secured by a principal residence for Chapter 7 purposes."

"The house was not purchased at the last minute at the expense of creditors, but instead was acquired when the Debtors enjoyed a greater level of income."

• In re Fitzgerald

Bankr.D.Connecticut - 418 B.R. 778 - 2009-11-13 - 7 , Above

"In considering a debtor's ability to pay, courts typically look to what the debtor could pay creditors under a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan. In re Salerno, supra, 408 B.R. at 558. Although BAPCPA defines an above-median debtor's projected disposable income under a Chapter 13 plan by reference to the means test criteria, see 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(3), the totality of the circumstances test under §707(b)(3)(B) considers not what the Debtor would be required to pay under a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan, but what the Debtor would be able to pay thereunder. In re Baeza, 398 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr. E.D.Cal. 2008). Thus, the Court looks to the Debtor's actual income and expenses to determine her ability to pay.
...
The Court, having found that (i) the Debtor has the ability to pay only a small fraction of unsecured claims from her future earnings over the next five years, and (ii) that all of the other relevant factors weigh heavily in the Debtor's favor, concludes that the relief sought by the Debtor under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code is not an abuse of that chapter."

• In re Perelman

Bankr.E.D. N.Y. - 419 BR 168 - 2009-10-30 - 7 , Above

case nonetheless be dismissed as an abuse based upon an ability to pay

• In re Ruel

Bankr.D.N.M. - 418 BR 389 - 2009-10-14 - 7 , Above

Their mortgage payment is much higher than the IRS guidelines for housing expense. They have two vehicles and a motorcycle; they could reduce expenses and bring in some income by selling a vehicle or the motorcycle (even taking into account Debtor's argument that using the motorcycle in good weather saves on fuel costs.) Therefore, expenses could be reduced without depriving the Debtors of adequate food, clothing, shelter or other necessities.

• In re Phillips

S.D. Ohio - 417 B.R. 30 - 2009-09-22 - 7 , Above

CUTS AGANST C CASES: DECLINES TO FOLLOW PANDL AND FELSKE
"if the Bankruptcy Code excludes certain retirement funds and loan repayments from a Chapter 13 debtor's "disposable income," thereby protecting those funds from payment to unsecured creditors, the court can see no logical basis for including those funds in "disposable income" when conducting a hypothetical Chapter 13 analysis under § 707(b)(3)....
...
This court concurs with Latone that it would be pointless to either dismiss a Chapter 7 case when a debtor could refile under Chapter 13, or convert the case directly to Chapter 13 if such action would not result in any additional funds being repaid to unsecured creditors. Id. See also In re Salerno, 408 B.R. 554, 558 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2009); In re Le Roy, 2009 WL 357923, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. Feb. 12, 2009); In re Skvorecz, 369 B.R. 638, 643-44 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2007) (reaching a conclusion similar to Latone that requiring either dismissal or conversion under § 707(b) was absurd if the only result would be a Chapter 13 case paying unsecured creditors nothing); In re Lenton, 358 B.R. 651, 664 (Bankr. E.D. Penn. 2006) (excluding from disposable income 401(k) contributions and loan repayments that would be "untouchable" in a Chapter 13 plan). In such circumstances, a debtor has no more "ability" to pay unsecured creditors in a Chapter 13 case than one under Chapter 7 and, consequently, that debtor's Chapter 7 case would not constitute an abuse on this basis.

For these reasons, the court rejects the UST's argument that the $357.78 in monthly contributions to the Debtor's TSP account and $436.11 towards repayment of two TSP loans should be included in the calculation of funds available to creditors in a hypothetical Chapter 13 case. Because these funds would be excluded from "disposable income"[17] in an actual Chapter 13 case, the court will afford the funds the same treatment in a hypothetical Chapter 13 analysis conducted under § 707(b)(3).[18]

• In re Boyle

Bankr.W.D. New York - 412 BR 108 - 2009-09-11 - 7 , Above

debtor can't keep boat while seeking discharge of unsecured debts.

• In re Daugherty

Bankr.N.D. Texas - 416 B.R. 582 - 2009-09-08 - 7 , Above

100K income debtor allowed to file chapter 7 where string of bad luck and poor decisions and marital problems, rather than attempt to evade creditors, was motive for financial moves that led to bankruptcy.

• In re Camp

Bankr.E.D.Texas - 416 B.R. 304 - 2009-09-04 - 7 , Above

• In re Desai

Bankr.E.D.Texas - Case No. 07-41713 - 2009-09-02 - ,

Discharge denied due to lack of business records.

• In re Osting

Bankr. N.D.Ohio - No. 09-30254 - 2009-08-21 - 7 ,

Debtor with significant 401(k) and a vacant house was not entitled to a Chapter 7 discharge pursuant to Section 707(b)(3). The court gave him 30 days to convert his case to a Chapter 11 filing, or have his case dismissed.

• In re Salerno

Bankr.D.Colorado - 408 B.R. 558 - 2009-06-25 - 7 , NA

requiring either dismissal or conversion under § 707(b) was absurd if the only result would be a Chapter 13 case paying unsecured creditors nothing)

• In re Goble

Bankr.SD Ohio - 401 B.R. 261 - 2009-02-17 - 7 ,

Although debtor is allowed to deduct surrendered home on means test form 22C, ability to pay a Chapter 13 plan relevant in determining whether to deny discharge under 702(b)(3). Reduced mortgage payments sufficient for finding of abuse under 703(b)(3). Good history of Sixth Circuit law on 703(b)(3) "totality of circumstances" cases.

• In re Castellaw

Bankr.N.D.Texas - 401 B.R. 223 - 2009-02-10 - 7 ,

Dismissal warranted under "totality of circumstances" where debtors purchased a new GMC Yukon shortly before filing, took a trip to Florida a month before filing, lived in an expensive home, wanted to keep their boat, and supported their 22-year-old son.

• In re Baker

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 400 B.R. 594 - 2009-01-30 - 7 ,

Debtor's student loan repayment may not be deducted from income, and deductions for daughters college and living expenses not allowed where unsecured creditors are receiving less than full payment. Case dismissed under "totality of circumstances"

• In re Booker

Bankr. W.D.Missouri - 399 B.R. 662 - 2009-01-23 - 7 ,

case dismissed based on bad faith and totality of circumstances where debtor could reduce or eliminate unreasonable expenses, including $350 monthly "spending money" for incarcerated son, and failing to fully disclose that expense.

"Congress has now bifurcated the grounds for dismissal by listing them in separate subparagraphs phrased in the disjunctive. Accordingly, they constitute separate and distinct grounds for relief. In re Henebury, 361 B.R. 595 (Bankr. S.D.Fla.2007). Accordingly, this Court agrees with the suggestion made by the U.S. Trustee in her post-trial brief that in assessing whether the filing was made in bad faith, this Court should focus more on conduct. Failure to observe that limitation would result in collapsing the two separate justifications for dismissal into one. Conversely, when assessing whether the case should be dismissed as an abuse based upon the totality of the Debtors' financial circumstances, the Court should consider primarily, if not exclusively, the Debtors' ability to pay. See, e.g., In re Parada, 391 B.R. 492 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2008) (determination of abuse under § 707(b)(3)(B) focuses solely on circumstances relating to debtors' financial situation)."

• In re Dixon

Bankr. E.D.Pa. - No. 08-10510DWS - 2009-01-21 - 13 ,

In this Chapter 13 case, debtors failed to fully and accurately complete (and later amend) their schedule within one year. The court found that this was cause to dismiss the case.

• In re King

Bankr. E.D.Tex. - Case No. 08-41975 - 2009-01-06 - 7 , Above

The court dismissed the debtor's case under Section 707(b)(3) [totality of circumstances]. The court said,"The debtors have been living beyond their means, and the totality of the monthly expenses reported by the debtors does not reflect any belt-tightening. The debtors likewise do not appear to have prioritized their expenses to fit within their monthly income. The debtors have not, for example, reduced certain expenses so that they can afford others. Instead, they seem to want to have it all. The debtors enjoy a stable income and good health, and their creditors should not be forced to bear the burden of maintaining the same lifestyle that precipitated this bankruptcy."

• In re Mravik

Bankr. E.D. Wis. - 399 B.R. 202 - 2008-12-31 - 7 , Above

Unrebutted presumption of abuse under means test does not require dismissal if a Chapter 7 case is presumed abusive under the means test, but would, in complete compliance with Chapter 13, produce no payments to unsecured creditors in a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan (due to different treatment of 401(k) loan repayment expenses.

• In re Calhoun

Bankr.D. South Carolina - 396 BR 270 - 2008-11-10 - 7 , Above

Abuse found under "totality of circumstances" where expenses of debtors with 100K+ annual incomes (more than 2X the state median) were found to be unreasonable and excessive. Also evidence of prior payments to creditors shows that debtor do have an ability to pay, and therefore abuse is found under 703(b).

• In re Harter

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 397 B.R. 860 - 2008-11-05 - 7 ,

Income of non filing spouse found relevant in a "totality of circumstances" dismissal. Ohio law creates a duty of one spouse to support the other, and debtor's car payments exceeded her income.

• In re Demesones

Bankr. E.D. Virgina - 406 B.R. 711 - 2008-10-24 - 7 ,

The debtors satisfied the means test under § 707(b)(2) in these cases. They are not required to reduce their means-test expenses by the secured debts that would have been paid over the 60-month period of a chapter 13 plan had they retained the property, notwithstanding that they intend to surrender the collateral. However, the court must determine under the totality of the circumstances test whether these cases should be dismissed for abuse under § 707(b)(3). This analysis will consider the effect of the surrender of the property among other circumstances.

• In re Draisey

8th Cir. BAP - 395 B.R.79 - 2008-10-16 - ,

§ 704(b)'s deadlines are inapplicable when the UST seeks relief under § 707(b)(3)

• In re Reese

Bankr. M.D. Floricda - 402 B.R. 43 - 2008-09-29 - 7 ,

the following ten factors may be indicia of bad faith under a Section 707(b)(3)(A) analysis:
(1) the debtor has only one asset in which it does not hold legal title;
(2) the debtor has few unsecured creditors whose claims are small in relation to the claims of the secured creditors;
(3) the debtor has few employees;
(4) the debtor is not financially distressed;
(5) the property is the subject of a foreclosure action as a result of arrearages on the debt;
(6) the debtor's financial problems involve essentially a dispute between the debtor and the secured creditors which can be resolved in a state court action;
(7) the timing of the debtor's filing evidences an intent to delay or frustrate the legitimate efforts of the debtor's secured creditors to enforce their rights;
(8) the debtor made purchases on the eve of filing; (9) incomplete or false disclosures by the debtor; and
(10) failure by the debtor to cooperate with the trustee.

• In re Marti

Bankr. Neb. - 393 B.R. 697 - 2008-08-04 - 13 , Below

Here, the totality of the circumstances leads to one conclusion—that confirmation should be denied. It is clear that despite the results of the means test, this Debtor has substantial income and has the ability to pay all creditors in full. The timing of the filing of this bankruptcy case and the plan proposed by Debtor indicate that Debtor's intent is to take advantage of what he perceives as a "loophole" in the calculation of his current monthly income. Debtor knew that his income was going to rise dramatically post-petition, yet he fails to propose a pay-in-full plan as he would be required to do if his filing date were just six months later. Debtor's bankruptcy filing and plan appear to be an attempt to unfairly manipulate the Bankruptcy Code and do not represent a good faith effort to pay creditors. Under the unique circumstances of this case, I find that Debtor has failed to meet the good faith requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and (7). Therefore, confirmation should be denied.

• In re Perrotta

Bankr. D. N.H. - No. 07-11614 - 2008-06-17 - ,

• In re Blankenship

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 398 B.R. 457 - 2008-05-15 - 7 ,

Dismissed for "totality of circumstances" where debtors monthly expenses included $519 for two rental properties that were vacant, and $400 payment on a 401(k) loan.
"Rather, "in its role as the trier-of-fact, the Court is under a duty to scrutinize a debtor's expenses, and make downward adjustments where necessary, so as to ensure that the debtor's expenses are reasonable. Similarly, when determining a debtor's `disposable income,' a court may impute income to the debtor when it would be equitable to do so—e.g., when the debtor is voluntarily underemployed." Id."

• In re Louviere

Bankr. E.D. Texas - 389 BR 502 - 2008-04-04 - 13 , Above

While those involved in the bankruptcy process often generically refer to the incorporation of the § 707(b) means test into the calculation of disposable income in Chapter 13 cases, a precise examination reveals that an important component of the Chapter 7 means test is actually omitted from consideration in Chapter 13 and that omission is critical in cases in which the debtor's income has been substantially reduced from previous levels. While § 707(b)(2)(B) contemplates the possibility of the existence of "special circumstances that justify additional expenses or adjustments of current monthly income for which there is no reasonable alternative,"[11] thereby allowing a Chapter 7 debtor to document a downward adjustment to income which can erase the presumption of abuse if that adjustment carries the ultimate calculation below the threshold amount,[12] that authority to adjust "current monthly income" due to changed circumstances is not actually incorporated into Chapter 13. An examination of § 1325(b) reveals that the provisions of 508 § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B) are incorporated into the disposable income calculation only for a limited purpose—to determine the "[a]mounts reasonably necessary to be expended under paragraph (2) ...,"[13] i.e., those expenditures reasonably necessary for the maintenance and support of the debtor and any dependents and/or for the operation of the debtor's business. Thus, while Chapter 7 provides for an adjustment to income in its application of the means test, no such adjustment to CMI is available in the Chapter 13 incarnation.[14] This limitation is reflected on line 57 of Form 22C which addresses only additional expense deductions, not adjustments to CMI.

• In re Close

D. Kan. - 384 B.R. 856 - 2008-03-28 - 7 ,

• In re Felske

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 385 B.R. 649 - 2008-02-06 - 7 ,

Based, therefore, on the foregoing discussion, the Debtors' 401(k) loan repayment of $788.55 per month will be considered `disposable income' for purposes of determining abuse under the `totality of the circumstances' test of § 707(b)(3)(B).

• In re Stewart

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 383 B.R. 429 - 2008-01-15 - 7 , N/A

Look to Pre-BAPCPA law to determine standards for 703(b)(3) totality of circumstances. In this case, debtor was found NOT to abuse the BK laws and was allowed to proceed with Chapter 7.

• In re Adams

Bankr.D.Md. - Case No. 06-16027 - 2007-10-19 - 7 , N/A

$1,300,000 residence, luxury car with $1,225 monthly payment, and unreasonable budget is factor in good faith calculus. (cited by In re Lipford

• Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Corp.

3rd Circuit - 497 F.3d 364 - 2007-08-03 - 7 , N/A

Lavish lifestyle not sufficient to find "bad faith" under 707(a). (Court did not address totality of circumstances" under (b)(3). Issue was not raised.)

• In re Zaporski

Bankr.E.D.Mich. - 366 B.R. 758 - 2007-04-17 - 7 , N/A

the Court considers the following circumstances as relevant in this case: Zaporski did not file bankruptcy because of any unforseen or catastrophic events, but instead because of excessive spending on entertainment and personal lifestyle choices; he has a substantial, above median income at a stable job; a substantial equity on his balance sheet; a substantial 774 pension plan for when he retires; a substantial 401(k) account; and an ability to continue making contributions to his 401(k) and repay all of his loans to it while at the same time having an ability to repay a meaningful dividend to his creditors, all without making any sacrifices in his present lifestyle. In these circumstances

• In re Zayas

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 2007 WL 987240 - 2007-04-02 - 7 , N/A

• In re Oot

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 368 B.R. 662 - 2007-03-19 - 7 , N/A

court dismissed case under totality of the circumstances where debtors made over $3,000 monthly mortgage payments on home, and reaffirmed debts for newer luxury vehicles and pop-up camper

• In re Henebury

Bankr.S.D.Fla. - 361 B.R. 595 - 2007-03-16 - 7 , N/A

“the debtor’s total financial situation as a measure of ability to pay, and bad faith are separate and sufficient grounds for dismissal. Either ability to pay or bad conduct in connection with the bankruptcy will warrant dismissal for abuse under §707(b)(3).”

• In re Nockerts

Bankr.E.D.Wis. - 357 B.R. 497 - 2006-12-14 - 7 , N/A

"[W]hile the ability to [fund a Chapter 13 plan] is a factor in the totality of circumstances test, and may even be the primary factor to be considered, if it is the only indicia of abuse, the case should not be dismissed under that test."

• In re James

Bkrtcy.N.D.Iowa - 345 B.R. 664 - 2006-06-30 - ,

dismissed under 707(b)(3) "totality of circumstances" because in the year preceding his bankruptcy, he received substantial sums of money from various sources and spent it all on unnecessary indulgences, rather than pay down his debt.

• In re Rahim and Abdulhussain

Bankr.E.D. - No 10-57577-R - - 12/16/2010 ,

Debtors with income of $500,000 not permitted to file BK. Medical practice revenue and expenses cannot conceal lavish lifestyle.

• Calhoun v U.S.Trustee

4th Cir. - 650 F.3d 338 (2011) - 2011-05-03 - ,

Means test non conclusive. Dismissal under 707(b)(3) appropriate where debtor has ability to pay, regardless of what means test shows. In this case most of income was retirement income and social security.

• In re Lanza

Bankr.M.D.Pa - No. 1:10-bk-06272-MDF - 2011-03-25 - 7 , below

Debtor's ability to pay, despite below median income, warrants dismissal. Surrender of property will free up income and daughter's education expenses must come after paying creditors.

• In re Hornung

Bankr. M.D.N.C. - 425 BR 242 - 2010-03-11 - 7 ,

Debtors were above median income. Form B22 listed debtors' monthly disposable income as negative $571, so there was no presumption of abuse. However, the court found that debtors' filing a Chapter 7 closely after expensive purchases was in bad faith and abusive under Section 707(b) totality of the circumstances. Specifically, debtors bought a home they couldn't afford, two expensive cars, and a vacation timeshare, all on the eve of bankruptcy.

The court found, upon readjusting debtor's income and expenses to account for post-petition events, that debtors could fully repay their unsecured creditors through Chapter 13.

• In re Pfeiler

Bankr. N.D.Iowa - No. 09-02815 - 2010-03-10 - ,

Trustee moved to dismiss the case because debtors had reaffirmed debt on two ATV's ($175 per month, and used for snow removal). Trustee argued that these were recreational items that the creditors shouldn't be made to subsidize. However, the debtors amended their income and expenses (schedules I and J), and rescinded their affirmation agreement, so the court found that there was no longer any reason to dismiss the case under trustee's initial motion.

• In re Hunt

Bankr. E.D. Mich. - No. 09-61845-wsd - 2009-12-22 - 7 ,

The court found that even though debtors appeared to have extra income, under the totality of the circumstances (Section 707(b)(3)), the debtors nonetheless were not in a position to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

• In re Smith

Bankr.N.D.West Virgina - Case No. 09-691 - 2009-11-23 - 7 ,

debtor's ability to pay creditors relevant to 707(b)(3) totality of the circumstances analysis.

• In re Meurer

Bankr.N.D.Texas - Case No. 09-41446 - 2009-11-18 - 7 , Above

Debtor's gambling and luxury lifestyle indicate that choices could be made to repay debts.

• In re Dumas

E.D. Tex. - 419 B.R. 704 - 2009-11-17 - ,

A higher than average mortgage payment did not preclude debtor from filing a Chapter 7 (it was not abusive).

"In defining a future ability to pay for an above-median income debtor in a Chapter 13 context, §1325(b)(3) provides that: "Amounts reasonably necessary to be expended ... shall be determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 707(b)(2)...." Whether arising as a product of congressional intent or congressional blunder, §707(b)(2) fails to impose any limit on the amount of debt which can be legitimately secured by a principal residence for Chapter 7 purposes."

"The house was not purchased at the last minute at the expense of creditors, but instead was acquired when the Debtors enjoyed a greater level of income."

• In re Fitzgerald

Bankr.D.Connecticut - 418 B.R. 778 - 2009-11-13 - 7 , Above

"In considering a debtor's ability to pay, courts typically look to what the debtor could pay creditors under a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan. In re Salerno, supra, 408 B.R. at 558. Although BAPCPA defines an above-median debtor's projected disposable income under a Chapter 13 plan by reference to the means test criteria, see 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(3), the totality of the circumstances test under §707(b)(3)(B) considers not what the Debtor would be required to pay under a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan, but what the Debtor would be able to pay thereunder. In re Baeza, 398 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr. E.D.Cal. 2008). Thus, the Court looks to the Debtor's actual income and expenses to determine her ability to pay.
...
The Court, having found that (i) the Debtor has the ability to pay only a small fraction of unsecured claims from her future earnings over the next five years, and (ii) that all of the other relevant factors weigh heavily in the Debtor's favor, concludes that the relief sought by the Debtor under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code is not an abuse of that chapter."

• In re Perelman

Bankr.E.D. N.Y. - 419 BR 168 - 2009-10-30 - 7 , Above

case nonetheless be dismissed as an abuse based upon an ability to pay

• In re Ruel

Bankr.D.N.M. - 418 BR 389 - 2009-10-14 - 7 , Above

Their mortgage payment is much higher than the IRS guidelines for housing expense. They have two vehicles and a motorcycle; they could reduce expenses and bring in some income by selling a vehicle or the motorcycle (even taking into account Debtor's argument that using the motorcycle in good weather saves on fuel costs.) Therefore, expenses could be reduced without depriving the Debtors of adequate food, clothing, shelter or other necessities.

• In re Phillips

S.D. Ohio - 417 B.R. 30 - 2009-09-22 - 7 , Above

CUTS AGANST C CASES: DECLINES TO FOLLOW PANDL AND FELSKE
"if the Bankruptcy Code excludes certain retirement funds and loan repayments from a Chapter 13 debtor's "disposable income," thereby protecting those funds from payment to unsecured creditors, the court can see no logical basis for including those funds in "disposable income" when conducting a hypothetical Chapter 13 analysis under § 707(b)(3)....
...
This court concurs with Latone that it would be pointless to either dismiss a Chapter 7 case when a debtor could refile under Chapter 13, or convert the case directly to Chapter 13 if such action would not result in any additional funds being repaid to unsecured creditors. Id. See also In re Salerno, 408 B.R. 554, 558 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2009); In re Le Roy, 2009 WL 357923, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. Feb. 12, 2009); In re Skvorecz, 369 B.R. 638, 643-44 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2007) (reaching a conclusion similar to Latone that requiring either dismissal or conversion under § 707(b) was absurd if the only result would be a Chapter 13 case paying unsecured creditors nothing); In re Lenton, 358 B.R. 651, 664 (Bankr. E.D. Penn. 2006) (excluding from disposable income 401(k) contributions and loan repayments that would be "untouchable" in a Chapter 13 plan). In such circumstances, a debtor has no more "ability" to pay unsecured creditors in a Chapter 13 case than one under Chapter 7 and, consequently, that debtor's Chapter 7 case would not constitute an abuse on this basis.

For these reasons, the court rejects the UST's argument that the $357.78 in monthly contributions to the Debtor's TSP account and $436.11 towards repayment of two TSP loans should be included in the calculation of funds available to creditors in a hypothetical Chapter 13 case. Because these funds would be excluded from "disposable income"[17] in an actual Chapter 13 case, the court will afford the funds the same treatment in a hypothetical Chapter 13 analysis conducted under § 707(b)(3).[18]

• In re Boyle

Bankr.W.D. New York - 412 BR 108 - 2009-09-11 - 7 , Above

debtor can't keep boat while seeking discharge of unsecured debts.

• In re Daugherty

Bankr.N.D. Texas - 416 B.R. 582 - 2009-09-08 - 7 , Above

100K income debtor allowed to file chapter 7 where string of bad luck and poor decisions and marital problems, rather than attempt to evade creditors, was motive for financial moves that led to bankruptcy.

• In re Camp

Bankr.E.D.Texas - 416 B.R. 304 - 2009-09-04 - 7 , Above

• In re Desai

Bankr.E.D.Texas - Case No. 07-41713 - 2009-09-02 - ,

Discharge denied due to lack of business records.

• In re Osting

Bankr. N.D.Ohio - No. 09-30254 - 2009-08-21 - 7 ,

Debtor with significant 401(k) and a vacant house was not entitled to a Chapter 7 discharge pursuant to Section 707(b)(3). The court gave him 30 days to convert his case to a Chapter 11 filing, or have his case dismissed.

• In re Salerno

Bankr.D.Colorado - 408 B.R. 558 - 2009-06-25 - 7 , NA

requiring either dismissal or conversion under § 707(b) was absurd if the only result would be a Chapter 13 case paying unsecured creditors nothing)

• In re Jensesn

Banrk. C.D.Cal - 407 B.R. 378 - 2009-04-28 - 7 ,

Court will not question amount of secured debt payments for hmotor ome and boat because debts were incurred two years prior to bankruptcy and appear not to have been incurred with an intent to defraud creditors, nor did the purchase make the debtor insolvent.. Also has a discussion of "ride through"

• In re Jensen

Bankr. C.D.CA - 407 BR 378 - 2009-04-28 - ,

Under Sec 707(b)(3) (totality of the circumstances test), courts should not deny an expense that the means test specifically allows.

"[T]he Means Test is only the first step in determining whether a debtor's petition is abusive. The Means Test functions as an initial screen to weed out those Chapter 7 petitions that are most clearly abusive."

"The totality of the circumstances test is best seen as providing a chance for the Court to refine the Means Test estimate. Since it permits individualized case-by-case examination, the totality of the circumstances test can weigh unusual circumstances that the Means Test does not — and could not reasonably be expected to — account for."

"[A]bsent additional indicia of abuse, a debtor's choice to continue to make secured-debt payments on retained property is not a basis for dismissing the debtor's Chapter 7 petition under § 707(b)(3)(B)."

"This case does not present indicia of abuse sufficient to justify classifying the Debtors' secured-debt payments as income available to pay unsecured creditors, a classification that would require the Court to find that the Debtors' Chapter 7 petition is abusive. The Debtors did not incur the secured debt obligations at issue shortly before bankruptcy. Instead, the Debtors purchased the boat and the motor home two years prior to filing. Furthermore, the purchase of the boat and the motor home did not precipitate the Debtors' insolvency. At the time Debtors made the purchases in 2006, they had monthly income of $9,500. The total monthly debt service on the purchases was $1,156, or approximately 12% of the Debtors' monthly income. In 2007, Debtors' monthly income increased to $12,649; as a result, Debtors were required to devote only 9% of their monthly income to payments on the boat and motor home. Debtors were forced to file for bankruptcy not because they spent more on luxury goods than they could afford, but rather because the declining economy adversely impacted Debtor Kirk Jensen's salary."

• In re Lamug

Bankr.N.D.Cal. - 403 B.R. 47 - 2009-02-18 - 7 , Above

"After making adjustments to Debtors expenses to only allow actual housing and Utility expenses, Debtors' actual monthly expenses total $4,051. Adjusting Debtors' withholding taxes as suggested by the UST and allowing Debtors to continue making their 401k deduction results in monthly income of approximately $7,368. Even with a 401k deduction, therefore, Debtors have approximately $3,317 in monthly disposable income which could be used to pay creditors.[6] This amount is substantial as Debtors could pay 100% of their unsecured debt in less than 28 months. Thus, the totality of the circumstances of Debtors' financial condition indicate that Debtors have an ability to repay their debts"

• In re Goble

Bankr.SD Ohio - 401 B.R. 261 - 2009-02-17 - 7 ,

Although debtor is allowed to deduct surrendered home on means test form 22C, ability to pay a Chapter 13 plan relevant in determining whether to deny discharge under 702(b)(3). Reduced mortgage payments sufficient for finding of abuse under 703(b)(3). Good history of Sixth Circuit law on 703(b)(3) "totality of circumstances" cases.

• In re Castellaw

Bankr.N.D.Texas - 401 B.R. 223 - 2009-02-10 - 7 ,

Dismissal warranted under "totality of circumstances" where debtors purchased a new GMC Yukon shortly before filing, took a trip to Florida a month before filing, lived in an expensive home, wanted to keep their boat, and supported their 22-year-old son.

• In re Baker

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 400 B.R. 594 - 2009-01-30 - 7 ,

Debtor's student loan repayment may not be deducted from income, and deductions for daughters college and living expenses not allowed where unsecured creditors are receiving less than full payment. Case dismissed under "totality of circumstances"

• In re Blausey (Blausey v. U.S. Trustee)

9th Cir. - 552 F.3d 1124 - 2009-01-23 - 7 , N/A

footnote 1: Section 707(b)(2) provides a means test by which bankruptcy courts determine whether a case is presumed to be an abuse of Chapter 7. If the case is presumed abusive, it will be dismissed unless the debtor shows "special circumstances" rebutting the presumption. 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(B)(I). If the presumption does not arise, the bankruptcy court may still find abuse under § 707(b)(3) based on the totality of the circumstances.

• In re Booker

Bankr. W.D.Missouri - 399 B.R. 662 - 2009-01-23 - 7 ,

case dismissed based on bad faith and totality of circumstances where debtor could reduce or eliminate unreasonable expenses, including $350 monthly "spending money" for incarcerated son, and failing to fully disclose that expense.

"Congress has now bifurcated the grounds for dismissal by listing them in separate subparagraphs phrased in the disjunctive. Accordingly, they constitute separate and distinct grounds for relief. In re Henebury, 361 B.R. 595 (Bankr. S.D.Fla.2007). Accordingly, this Court agrees with the suggestion made by the U.S. Trustee in her post-trial brief that in assessing whether the filing was made in bad faith, this Court should focus more on conduct. Failure to observe that limitation would result in collapsing the two separate justifications for dismissal into one. Conversely, when assessing whether the case should be dismissed as an abuse based upon the totality of the Debtors' financial circumstances, the Court should consider primarily, if not exclusively, the Debtors' ability to pay. See, e.g., In re Parada, 391 B.R. 492 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2008) (determination of abuse under § 707(b)(3)(B) focuses solely on circumstances relating to debtors' financial situation)."

• In re Dixon

Bankr. E.D.Pa. - No. 08-10510DWS - 2009-01-21 - 13 ,

In this Chapter 13 case, debtors failed to fully and accurately complete (and later amend) their schedule within one year. The court found that this was cause to dismiss the case.

• In re King

Bankr. E.D.Tex. - Case No. 08-41975 - 2009-01-06 - 7 , Above

The court dismissed the debtor's case under Section 707(b)(3) [totality of circumstances]. The court said,"The debtors have been living beyond their means, and the totality of the monthly expenses reported by the debtors does not reflect any belt-tightening. The debtors likewise do not appear to have prioritized their expenses to fit within their monthly income. The debtors have not, for example, reduced certain expenses so that they can afford others. Instead, they seem to want to have it all. The debtors enjoy a stable income and good health, and their creditors should not be forced to bear the burden of maintaining the same lifestyle that precipitated this bankruptcy."

• In re Mravik

Bankr. E.D. Wis. - 399 B.R. 202 - 2008-12-31 - 7 , Above

Unrebutted presumption of abuse under means test does not require dismissal if a Chapter 7 case is presumed abusive under the means test, but would, in complete compliance with Chapter 13, produce no payments to unsecured creditors in a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan (due to different treatment of 401(k) loan repayment expenses.

• In re Baeza

Bankr.E.D.Cal. - 398 B.R. 692 - 2008-12-29 - 7 , Above

“while the totality of all of the debtor's financial circumstances must be examined, the ability to pay a significant dividend to creditors and the failure to do so standing alone can be an abuse of chapter 7, absent mitigating factors.”; social security income may be considered as part of an assessment of an ability to pay under the totality of the circumstances test notwithstanding its express exclusion from CMI under the means test.

• In re Calhoun

Bankr.D. South Carolina - 396 BR 270 - 2008-11-10 - 7 , Above

Abuse found under "totality of circumstances" where expenses of debtors with 100K+ annual incomes (more than 2X the state median) were found to be unreasonable and excessive. Also evidence of prior payments to creditors shows that debtor do have an ability to pay, and therefore abuse is found under 703(b).

• In re Harter

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 397 B.R. 860 - 2008-11-05 - 7 ,

Income of non filing spouse found relevant in a "totality of circumstances" dismissal. Ohio law creates a duty of one spouse to support the other, and debtor's car payments exceeded her income.

• In re Demesones

Bankr. E.D. Virgina - 406 B.R. 711 - 2008-10-24 - 7 ,

The debtors satisfied the means test under § 707(b)(2) in these cases. They are not required to reduce their means-test expenses by the secured debts that would have been paid over the 60-month period of a chapter 13 plan had they retained the property, notwithstanding that they intend to surrender the collateral. However, the court must determine under the totality of the circumstances test whether these cases should be dismissed for abuse under § 707(b)(3). This analysis will consider the effect of the surrender of the property among other circumstances.

• In re Draisey

8th Cir. BAP - 395 B.R.79 - 2008-10-16 - ,

§ 704(b)'s deadlines are inapplicable when the UST seeks relief under § 707(b)(3)

• In re Reese

Bankr. M.D. Floricda - 402 B.R. 43 - 2008-09-29 - 7 ,

the following ten factors may be indicia of bad faith under a Section 707(b)(3)(A) analysis:
(1) the debtor has only one asset in which it does not hold legal title;
(2) the debtor has few unsecured creditors whose claims are small in relation to the claims of the secured creditors;
(3) the debtor has few employees;
(4) the debtor is not financially distressed;
(5) the property is the subject of a foreclosure action as a result of arrearages on the debt;
(6) the debtor's financial problems involve essentially a dispute between the debtor and the secured creditors which can be resolved in a state court action;
(7) the timing of the debtor's filing evidences an intent to delay or frustrate the legitimate efforts of the debtor's secured creditors to enforce their rights;
(8) the debtor made purchases on the eve of filing; (9) incomplete or false disclosures by the debtor; and
(10) failure by the debtor to cooperate with the trustee.

• In re Marti

Bankr. Neb. - 393 B.R. 697 - 2008-08-04 - 13 , Below

Here, the totality of the circumstances leads to one conclusion—that confirmation should be denied. It is clear that despite the results of the means test, this Debtor has substantial income and has the ability to pay all creditors in full. The timing of the filing of this bankruptcy case and the plan proposed by Debtor indicate that Debtor's intent is to take advantage of what he perceives as a "loophole" in the calculation of his current monthly income. Debtor knew that his income was going to rise dramatically post-petition, yet he fails to propose a pay-in-full plan as he would be required to do if his filing date were just six months later. Debtor's bankruptcy filing and plan appear to be an attempt to unfairly manipulate the Bankruptcy Code and do not represent a good faith effort to pay creditors. Under the unique circumstances of this case, I find that Debtor has failed to meet the good faith requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and (7). Therefore, confirmation should be denied.

• In re Crink

Bankr. M.D. N.C. - 402 B.R. 195 - 2008-07-31 - 7 ,

Abuse found based on "ability to pay" where debtor could reduce 'excessive' housing expenses by moving to smaller home rather than current 5,000 sq ft home for family of 3.

• In re Perrotta

Bankr. D. N.H. - No. 07-11614 - 2008-06-17 - ,

• In re Blankenship

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 398 B.R. 457 - 2008-05-15 - 7 ,

Dismissed for "totality of circumstances" where debtors monthly expenses included $519 for two rental properties that were vacant, and $400 payment on a 401(k) loan.
"Rather, "in its role as the trier-of-fact, the Court is under a duty to scrutinize a debtor's expenses, and make downward adjustments where necessary, so as to ensure that the debtor's expenses are reasonable. Similarly, when determining a debtor's `disposable income,' a court may impute income to the debtor when it would be equitable to do so—e.g., when the debtor is voluntarily underemployed." Id."

• In re Louviere

Bankr. E.D. Texas - 389 BR 502 - 2008-04-04 - 13 , Above

While those involved in the bankruptcy process often generically refer to the incorporation of the § 707(b) means test into the calculation of disposable income in Chapter 13 cases, a precise examination reveals that an important component of the Chapter 7 means test is actually omitted from consideration in Chapter 13 and that omission is critical in cases in which the debtor's income has been substantially reduced from previous levels. While § 707(b)(2)(B) contemplates the possibility of the existence of "special circumstances that justify additional expenses or adjustments of current monthly income for which there is no reasonable alternative,"[11] thereby allowing a Chapter 7 debtor to document a downward adjustment to income which can erase the presumption of abuse if that adjustment carries the ultimate calculation below the threshold amount,[12] that authority to adjust "current monthly income" due to changed circumstances is not actually incorporated into Chapter 13. An examination of § 1325(b) reveals that the provisions of 508 § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B) are incorporated into the disposable income calculation only for a limited purpose—to determine the "[a]mounts reasonably necessary to be expended under paragraph (2) ...,"[13] i.e., those expenditures reasonably necessary for the maintenance and support of the debtor and any dependents and/or for the operation of the debtor's business. Thus, while Chapter 7 provides for an adjustment to income in its application of the means test, no such adjustment to CMI is available in the Chapter 13 incarnation.[14] This limitation is reflected on line 57 of Form 22C which addresses only additional expense deductions, not adjustments to CMI.

• In re Close

D. Kan. - 384 B.R. 856 - 2008-03-28 - 7 ,

• In re Felske

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 385 B.R. 649 - 2008-02-06 - 7 ,

Based, therefore, on the foregoing discussion, the Debtors' 401(k) loan repayment of $788.55 per month will be considered `disposable income' for purposes of determining abuse under the `totality of the circumstances' test of § 707(b)(3)(B).

• In re Stewart

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 383 B.R. 429 - 2008-01-15 - 7 , N/A

Look to Pre-BAPCPA law to determine standards for 703(b)(3) totality of circumstances. In this case, debtor was found NOT to abuse the BK laws and was allowed to proceed with Chapter 7.

• In re Adams

Bankr.D.Md. - Case No. 06-16027 - 2007-10-19 - 7 , N/A

$1,300,000 residence, luxury car with $1,225 monthly payment, and unreasonable budget is factor in good faith calculus. (cited by In re Lipford

• Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Corp.

3rd Circuit - 497 F.3d 364 - 2007-08-03 - 7 , N/A

Lavish lifestyle not sufficient to find "bad faith" under 707(a). (Court did not address totality of circumstances" under (b)(3). Issue was not raised.)

• In re Zaporski

Bankr.E.D.Mich. - 366 B.R. 758 - 2007-04-17 - 7 , N/A

the Court considers the following circumstances as relevant in this case: Zaporski did not file bankruptcy because of any unforseen or catastrophic events, but instead because of excessive spending on entertainment and personal lifestyle choices; he has a substantial, above median income at a stable job; a substantial equity on his balance sheet; a substantial 774 pension plan for when he retires; a substantial 401(k) account; and an ability to continue making contributions to his 401(k) and repay all of his loans to it while at the same time having an ability to repay a meaningful dividend to his creditors, all without making any sacrifices in his present lifestyle. In these circumstances

• In re Zayas

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 2007 WL 987240 - 2007-04-02 - 7 , N/A

• In re Oot

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 368 B.R. 662 - 2007-03-19 - 7 , N/A

court dismissed case under totality of the circumstances where debtors made over $3,000 monthly mortgage payments on home, and reaffirmed debts for newer luxury vehicles and pop-up camper

• In re Henebury

Bankr.S.D.Fla. - 361 B.R. 595 - 2007-03-16 - 7 , N/A

“the debtor’s total financial situation as a measure of ability to pay, and bad faith are separate and sufficient grounds for dismissal. Either ability to pay or bad conduct in connection with the bankruptcy will warrant dismissal for abuse under §707(b)(3).”

• In re McUne

Bankr.D.Or. - 358 B.R. 397 - 2006-12-19 - 7 , N/A

Where the presumption of abuse does not arise under § 707(b)(2), may the court nonetheless consider the debtor's ability to fund a chapter 13 plan of reorganization as part of a motion to dismiss under § 707(b)(3), based on the totality of the circumstances of debtor's financial situation?

• In re Nockerts

Bankr.E.D.Wis. - 357 B.R. 497 - 2006-12-14 - 7 , N/A

"[W]hile the ability to [fund a Chapter 13 plan] is a factor in the totality of circumstances test, and may even be the primary factor to be considered, if it is the only indicia of abuse, the case should not be dismissed under that test."

• In re James

Bkrtcy.N.D.Iowa - 345 B.R. 664 - 2006-06-30 - ,

dismissed under 707(b)(3) "totality of circumstances" because in the year preceding his bankruptcy, he received substantial sums of money from various sources and spent it all on unnecessary indulgences, rather than pay down his debt.

• In re Pak

Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal. - 343 B.R. 239 - 2006-05-18 - 7 ,

Totality of circumstances; 707(b)(3);
denied a debtor the right to file Chapter 7 because the debtor was about to have a substantial increase in income.

• In re Masur

Bankr. D S.D. - 2007 WL 3231725 - 0000-00-00 - 7 ,

• In re Smith

Bankr.D.Idaho - - - 7 ,

Abuse found under "totality of circumstances" where debtor's child support obligation would end in the middle of Chapter 13 plan, meaning he could pay 60,000 over the next five years.

• In re Rahim and Abdulhussain

Bankr.E.D. - No 10-57577-R - - 12/16/2010 ,

Debtors with income of $500,000 not permitted to file BK. Medical practice revenue and expenses cannot conceal lavish lifestyle.

All Cases A to Z

• Calhoun v U.S.Trustee, 650 F.3d 338 (2011) , (4th Cir. ) 2011-05-03, #12490161398807287100
• In re Adams, Case No. 06-16027 , (Bankr.D.Md. ) 2007-10-19, #
• In re Baeza, 398 B.R. 692 , (Bankr.E.D.Cal. ) 2008-12-29, #10060937309661699984
• In re Baker, 400 B.R. 594 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2009-01-30, #10297691131073738335
• In re Blankenship, 398 B.R. 457 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2008-05-15, #6554281185069266234
• In re Blausey (Blausey v. U.S. Trustee), 552 F.3d 1124 , (9th Cir. ) 2009-01-23, #7068307081325044770
• In re Booker, 399 B.R. 662 , (Bankr. W.D.Missouri ) 2009-01-23, #13242738420409127483
• In re Boyle, 412 BR 108 , (Bankr.W.D. New York ) 2009-09-11, #15601227414596467207
• In re Calhoun, 396 BR 270 , (Bankr.D. South Carolina ) 2008-11-10, #11424154714769758259
• In re Camp, 416 B.R. 304 , (Bankr.E.D.Texas ) 2009-09-04, #7249165597480697682
• In re Castellaw, 401 B.R. 223 , (Bankr.N.D.Texas ) 2009-02-10, #17472080381151798819
• In re Close, 384 B.R. 856 , (D. Kan. ) 2008-03-28, #520777650322442422
• In re Crink, 402 B.R. 195 , (Bankr. M.D. N.C. ) 2008-07-31, #10401657833708042596
• In re Daugherty, 416 B.R. 582 , (Bankr.N.D. Texas ) 2009-09-08, #1871327002715980529
• In re Demesones, 406 B.R. 711 , (Bankr. E.D. Virgina ) 2008-10-24, #4327275822432141120
• In re Desai, Case No. 07-41713 , (Bankr.E.D.Texas ) 2009-09-02, #5576954106624556880
• In re Dixon, No. 08-10510DWS , (Bankr. E.D.Pa. ) 2009-01-21, #15808303357362131499
• In re Draisey, 395 B.R.79 , (8th Cir. BAP ) 2008-10-16, #346403741994536536
• In re Dumas, 419 B.R. 704 , (E.D. Tex. ) 2009-11-17, #8615608555109410908
• In re Felske, 385 B.R. 649 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2008-02-06, #9788658839424903022
• In re Fitzgerald, 418 B.R. 778 , (Bankr.D.Connecticut ) 2009-11-13, #8603064374499541507
• In re Goble, 401 B.R. 261 , (Bankr.SD Ohio ) 2009-02-17, #11760670167634927513
• In re Harter, 397 B.R. 860 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2008-11-05, #12602452284157904721
• In re Henebury, 361 B.R. 595 , (Bankr.S.D.Fla. ) 2007-03-16, #15486072475384608734
• In re Hornung, 425 BR 242 , (Bankr. M.D.N.C. ) 2010-03-11, #16448911195934074517
• In re Hunt, No. 09-61845-wsd , (Bankr. E.D. Mich. ) 2009-12-22, #1910912076058976004
• In re James, 345 B.R. 664 , (Bkrtcy.N.D.Iowa ) 2006-06-30, #1352139199210136244
• In re Jensen, 407 BR 378 , (Bankr. C.D.CA ) 2009-04-28, #8903358563729138555
• In re Jensesn, 407 B.R. 378 , (Banrk. C.D.Cal ) 2009-04-28, #8903358563729138555
• In re King, Case No. 08-41975 , (Bankr. E.D.Tex. ) 2009-01-06, #9180662154528059849
• In re Lamug, 403 B.R. 47 , (Bankr.N.D.Cal. ) 2009-02-18, #6006813925741352512
• In re Lanza, No. 1:10-bk-06272-MDF , (Bankr.M.D.Pa ) 2011-03-25, #11017639960127382771
• In re Louviere, 389 BR 502 , (Bankr. E.D. Texas ) 2008-04-04, #8410395242524717868
• In re Marti, 393 B.R. 697 , (Bankr. Neb. ) 2008-08-04, #15496126422987594743
• In re Masur, 2007 WL 3231725 , (Bankr. D S.D. ) 0000-00-00, #11760670167634927513
• In re McUne, 358 B.R. 397 , (Bankr.D.Or. ) 2006-12-19, #7070576628553353085
• In re Meurer, Case No. 09-41446 , (Bankr.N.D.Texas ) 2009-11-18, #3121974087627781095
• In re Mravik, 399 B.R. 202 , (Bankr. E.D. Wis. ) 2008-12-31, #9601931560099652766
• In re Nockerts, 357 B.R. 497 , (Bankr.E.D.Wis. ) 2006-12-14, #11105860880297690118
• In re Oot, 368 B.R. 662 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2007-03-19, #10021140041354257017
• In re Osting, No. 09-30254 , (Bankr. N.D.Ohio ) 2009-08-21, #17741722283628584428
• In re Pak, 343 B.R. 239 , (Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal. ) 2006-05-18, #12162008244438526176
• In re Perelman, 419 BR 168 , (Bankr.E.D. N.Y. ) 2009-10-30, #805944261602764290
• In re Perrotta, No. 07-11614 , (Bankr. D. N.H. ) 2008-06-17, #1633913662049709983
• In re Pfeiler, No. 09-02815 , (Bankr. N.D.Iowa ) 2010-03-10, #1579759412868137768
• In re Phillips, 417 B.R. 30 , (S.D. Ohio ) 2009-09-22, #17197251073868773270
• In re Rahim and Abdulhussain, No 10-57577-R , (Bankr.E.D. ) , #15295557057895027927
• In re Reese, 402 B.R. 43 , (Bankr. M.D. Floricda ) 2008-09-29, #10670030318874905516
• In re Ruel, 418 BR 389 , (Bankr.D.N.M. ) 2009-10-14, #15704221434480222378
• In re Salerno, 408 B.R. 558 , (Bankr.D.Colorado ) 2009-06-25, #3855918633145811105
• In re Smith, Case No. 09-691 , (Bankr.N.D.West Virgina ) 2009-11-23, #1649170726372750349
• In re Smith, , (Bankr.D.Idaho ) , #
• In re Stewart, 383 B.R. 429 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2008-01-15, #13611197305785966482
• In re Zaporski, 366 B.R. 758 , (Bankr.E.D.Mich. ) 2007-04-17, #3225070862768722755
• In re Zayas, 2007 WL 987240 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2007-04-02, #
• Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Corp., 497 F.3d 364 , (3rd Circuit ) 2007-08-03, #