In re Kucharz, 418 BR 635 (C.D.Illinios 2009) Income: Are unemployment compensation payments included in income or part of "social security"

Case Summary In re Kucharz,418 BR 635, C.D.Illinios, 10/28/2009, 13, Above

In re Kucharz, 418 BR 635 (C.D.Illinios 2009)

View this case in Google Scholar: In re Kucharz, 418 BR 635 (C.D.Illinios 2009)

Topics

10. Income: Does it include withdrawal of assets, disability insurance proceeds, tax credits
Form 22A Line: 07 :: Form 22C Line: 06
Case Type: D - includes unemployment compensation benefits

unemployment benefits are not "received under the Social Security Act," as that phrase is used in Section 101(10A). This Court agrees with Baden, and disagrees with Munger and Sorrell.
34. Income: Are unemployment compensation payments included in income or part of "social security"
Form 22A Line: 09 :: Form 22C Line: 08
Case Type: A - Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI

unemployment benefits are not "received under the Social Security Act," as that phrase is used in Section 101(10A). This Court agrees with Baden, and disagrees with Munger and Sorrell.

Means Test > Income > Unemployment Compensation

Income: Are unemployment compensation payments included in income or part of "social security"

7 Cases , IssueID 34

Ch 7 Means Test
Form 22A, Line 09

Ch 13 Means Test
Form 22C Line 08

Topic Description:

This issue can depend on state law determinations of how state unemployment insurance is classified.

It is undisputed that Social Security monies are not income. (11 U.S.C. §101(10A)(B). )

The question is whether unemployment insurance is considered a social security benefit under state law.

Lines of Cases:

A:	Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI
B::	Do NOT include Unemployment Compensation in CMI

Type A = Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI

Type B = Do NOT include Unemployment Compensation in CMI

Type E = "Everything Else"

Cases for Zip
All Cases By Date
Cases A - Z

Cases for Zip , California Northern District Bankruptcy Court

Ninth Circuit Cases

No Ninth Circuit cases in database on this topic

Other Circuits

• In re Washington

M.D. Ala. - 438 B.R. 348 - 2010-09-24 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 5337164564263222602
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

The court is therefore left with its initial, straightforward, and plain understanding that the phrase "benefits received under the Social Security Act" does not include unemployment benefits—a plain and straightforward understanding that the court believes the legislators had when they wrote and adopted the language.

• In re Avellaneda

Bankr.E.D.Virginia - Case No. 09-18106-SSM - 2009-12-16 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 10370909038072018047
(Type E : )

Court notes split of authority on issue but refuses to rule.:
The question of whether state-administered unemployment benefits constitute "benefits received under the Social Security Act" has divided the courts. At the time this opinion is written, the score card of reported decisions is two holding that such benefits are indeed "received" under the Social Security Act, while two strongly argue that they are not. Compare In re Munger, 370 B.R. 21 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) and In re Sorrell, 359 B.R. 167 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007) (both holding that unemployment benefits are received under the Social Security Act) with In re Baden, 396 B.R. 617 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2008) and In re Kucharz, ___ B.R. ___, 2009 WL 3518163, at *4 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2009) (both holding that unemployment benefits are not received under the Social Security Act). Although compelling arguments can be made each way, the court need not—indeed may not—enter into the fray in the context of the present case. Bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, are constitutionally limited to deciding "cases and controversies" and may not render advisory opinions. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 404, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (explaining that federal courts may not "decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). In the present case, including the unemployment compensation in the calculation of CMI does not result in the annualized CMI exceeding the state-wide median and therefore does not trigger the 60-month commitment period or the means test. Accordingly, whether unemployment benefits should or should not have been included in the calculation has no impact on confirmation of the plan before the court. It will be soon enough, in a case in which the outcome would be affected, for the court to decide the question raised by the trustee.

• In re Kucharz

C.D.Illinios - 418 BR 635 - 2009-10-28 - 13 , Above

Google ID#: 13603416160589900631
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

unemployment benefits are not "received under the Social Security Act," as that phrase is used in Section 101(10A). This Court agrees with Baden, and disagrees with Munger and Sorrell.

• In re Baden

Bankr. M.D. Pa. - 396 B.R. 617 - 2008-10-30 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 12190568406875869814
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

unemployment compensation is not a "benefit received under the Social Security Act" and, therefore, should be included in the calculation of CMI.

• In re Munger

Bankr.Mass. - 370 B.R. 21 - 2007-06-21 - 7 , N/A

Google ID#: 12975029659281916104
(Type B : Do NOT include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

Based on canons of statutory construction and the Sorrell decision, this Court holds that unemployment compensation does constitute a "benefit received under the Social Security Act" for purposes of calculating CMI under 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A) and thus was properly excluded from the calculation of CMI. Thus the filing of chapter 7, rather than a chapter 13, petition is not an abuse warranting dismissal.

• In re Sorrell

Bankr.S.D.Ohio - 359 B.R. 167 - 2007-01-26 - 7 , N/A

Google ID#: 10954965718446510864
(Type B : Do NOT include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

In summary, in consideration of the text of various relevant portions of the Social Security. Act, United States Supreme Court language, and a comparison with other statutory text of the 2005 Act, which reference specific provisions of the Social Security Act, the court holds that unemployment compensation is one of the "benefits under the Social Security Act." Accordingly, the 41,295.00 listed by the Debtors on line 9 of their Form 22A is correctly excluded from CMI.

• In re Kurcharz

Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2009 - 418 B.R. 635 - - ,

Google ID#: 13603416160589900631
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

Unemployment benefits are income; benefits derived from state law, not Social Security Act.

• In re Washington

M.D. Ala. - 438 B.R. 348 - 2010-09-24 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 5337164564263222602
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

The court is therefore left with its initial, straightforward, and plain understanding that the phrase "benefits received under the Social Security Act" does not include unemployment benefits—a plain and straightforward understanding that the court believes the legislators had when they wrote and adopted the language.

• In re Avellaneda

Bankr.E.D.Virginia - Case No. 09-18106-SSM - 2009-12-16 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 10370909038072018047
(Type E : )

Court notes split of authority on issue but refuses to rule.:
The question of whether state-administered unemployment benefits constitute "benefits received under the Social Security Act" has divided the courts. At the time this opinion is written, the score card of reported decisions is two holding that such benefits are indeed "received" under the Social Security Act, while two strongly argue that they are not. Compare In re Munger, 370 B.R. 21 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) and In re Sorrell, 359 B.R. 167 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007) (both holding that unemployment benefits are received under the Social Security Act) with In re Baden, 396 B.R. 617 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2008) and In re Kucharz, ___ B.R. ___, 2009 WL 3518163, at *4 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2009) (both holding that unemployment benefits are not received under the Social Security Act). Although compelling arguments can be made each way, the court need not—indeed may not—enter into the fray in the context of the present case. Bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, are constitutionally limited to deciding "cases and controversies" and may not render advisory opinions. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 404, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (explaining that federal courts may not "decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). In the present case, including the unemployment compensation in the calculation of CMI does not result in the annualized CMI exceeding the state-wide median and therefore does not trigger the 60-month commitment period or the means test. Accordingly, whether unemployment benefits should or should not have been included in the calculation has no impact on confirmation of the plan before the court. It will be soon enough, in a case in which the outcome would be affected, for the court to decide the question raised by the trustee.

• In re Kucharz

C.D.Illinios - 418 BR 635 - 2009-10-28 - 13 , Above

Google ID#: 13603416160589900631
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

unemployment benefits are not "received under the Social Security Act," as that phrase is used in Section 101(10A). This Court agrees with Baden, and disagrees with Munger and Sorrell.

• In re Baden

Bankr. M.D. Pa. - 396 B.R. 617 - 2008-10-30 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 12190568406875869814
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

unemployment compensation is not a "benefit received under the Social Security Act" and, therefore, should be included in the calculation of CMI.

• In re Munger

Bankr.Mass. - 370 B.R. 21 - 2007-06-21 - 7 , N/A

Google ID#: 12975029659281916104
(Type B : Do NOT include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

Based on canons of statutory construction and the Sorrell decision, this Court holds that unemployment compensation does constitute a "benefit received under the Social Security Act" for purposes of calculating CMI under 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A) and thus was properly excluded from the calculation of CMI. Thus the filing of chapter 7, rather than a chapter 13, petition is not an abuse warranting dismissal.

• In re Sorrell

Bankr.S.D.Ohio - 359 B.R. 167 - 2007-01-26 - 7 , N/A

Google ID#: 10954965718446510864
(Type B : Do NOT include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

In summary, in consideration of the text of various relevant portions of the Social Security. Act, United States Supreme Court language, and a comparison with other statutory text of the 2005 Act, which reference specific provisions of the Social Security Act, the court holds that unemployment compensation is one of the "benefits under the Social Security Act." Accordingly, the 41,295.00 listed by the Debtors on line 9 of their Form 22A is correctly excluded from CMI.

• In re Kurcharz

Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2009 - 418 B.R. 635 - - ,

Google ID#: 13603416160589900631
(Type A : Include Unemployment Compensation in CMI )

Unemployment benefits are income; benefits derived from state law, not Social Security Act.

All Cases A to Z

In re Avellaneda, Case No. 09-18106-SSM , (Bankr.E.D.Virginia ) 2009-12-16, #10370909038072018047
In re Baden, 396 B.R. 617 , (Bankr. M.D. Pa. ) 2008-10-30, #12190568406875869814
In re Kucharz, 418 BR 635 , (C.D.Illinios ) 2009-10-28, #13603416160589900631
In re Kurcharz, 418 B.R. 635 , (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2009 ) , #13603416160589900631
In re Munger, 370 B.R. 21 , (Bankr.Mass. ) 2007-06-21, #12975029659281916104
In re Sorrell, 359 B.R. 167 , (Bankr.S.D.Ohio ) 2007-01-26, #10954965718446510864
In re Washington, 438 B.R. 348 , (M.D. Ala. ) 2010-09-24, #5337164564263222602

FAQ/Help:

How to use case law (it can be tricky)

If you're not familiar with what "case law" is, and how to use it, check out Chapter 7 of Nolo's LegalResearch: How to Find and Understand the Law for a guide to how to read through a case to get the parts that matter.

Also, you need to be familiar with the concept of "jurisdiction." Here are some helpful links:

When you read a case, check to make sure that the case's decision applies to your local district. Do this by looking at which court has decided the case -- either the U.S. Supreme Court, a court of appeal (listed here in large type), or a district court (listed in small type). Your local district court judge is not bound to follow the opinion of judges from other district courts, but often they look to these cases for advice. Your local district, however, is bound to follow decisions in cases from it governing circuit court. You'll see fairly few Supreme Court case here, but those cases are also binding on all districts."

Links:

Are these all the bankruptcy cases there are?

NO! NO! NO! This is a start for your research. New cases are constantly being decided. I update this when I have time. This is only a fraction of the actual published opinions out there. Dozens of cases are handed down nationwide every week. I catalog interesting ones when I have time. They are meant to serve as a starting point for your research -- NOT as a comprehensive listing of the current state of the law.

Georgia Bankruptcy Law & Information v.3.51 Bankruptcy Info for Enigma, GA

LegalConsumer.com Bankruptcy Research Notes - Beta 0.08 - (1300+ cases & articles, and counting...)

Topics:

Topic #34:

Income: Are unemployment compensation payments included in income or part of "social security"

Case Summary In re Kucharz,418 BR 635, C.D.Illinios, 10/28/2009, 13, Above