you just entertained arguments from chapter thirteen trustee arguing to throw out the congressionally approved statute in the form th the problem that results that if you use that schedule i and j number that figure has to go to the unsecured class there wouldn't be anything left over to to page has secured creditors and administrative claims in a person the consumer of family  consumers facing foreclosure wouldn't be able to have any money money available to them to pay the original in their home loan if all that money is going to the to the unsecured creditors because the statute d that this projected disposable income now goes to the unsecured creditors it's no longer a measure of a plan payment that gets distributed to everybody that's a plan it's a whole new  debtors and particularly those that are that are above the median and that's a creditor protection i think before the change the creditors were upset because certain bankruptcy judges would allow really government for the administration of the of the case the debtor's council amount that there that the consumer can't afford to pay at the beginning of the case and has to pay overtime and anything that comes up in the case that the debtors council has to do we have to you're after escort went the opposite way from previous court exactly the court the bankruptcy court wants to throw out the definition of disposable income and replace it with schedule so i and j trying to give meaning to the word projection where you say projected disposable income the courts could see court's opinion was that that projection somehow modified the defined term disposable income in such a way that you throw out the means test and you go back to the old way of doing things and what have you determine projected disposable income or do you say well projection and and strictly on the farm or do something else with it strictly on the form disposable income is a new definition and we're we're dealing with an average of of income that that  captures debtors in a in a situation where they think they can no longer you know stop working and file chapter seven because they don't have any income that it captures the six months previous income and then it  maximum expenses and other expenses and you have a number that's attributable to the unsecured class now that number is then projected by a variable that in this code section  a value for a debt or above median income the applicable commitment value was assigned sixty months it's a five year period and you so you project over sixty months the congressionally mandated disposable income figure to derive what the unsecured creditors must also think that means that you have to keep it open for sixty months well that would be a ridiculous result to have a debtor stay in a case for five years or any any additional time in the on the point where the disposable income amount to the unsecured creditors can be paid in addition to whatever else has to be paid  years your payments will be zero unless there's a motion to modify the plan well it's administrative the inefficient to have a debtor in a case for five years were no payments are due to creditors and it's unfair to the other creditors but it would be terribly beneficial if the creditor as a debtor could structure his current monthly income just before he wa the bankruptcy to be low therefore he wouldn't have any projected disposable income and then after according to you there's no period of commitment because he's not he doesn't owe anything and then he knew i'd get another what the classical economic economists say is a rational economic be can converse just give us the current monthly income as an average of the past six months and excluded certain types of income and that figure is fair to the creditors overall i'm not talking about that i'm talking about a five year period five years of paying zero if that's the point allows the creditors to come in later a year or a year and a half later and say situation has changed now you've got real disposable income we should be getting some of that under your theory the commitment theories to be one  debtors don't want to lecture after seven and get out of the debt entirely they'd like to pay something if they do so they shouldn't be subjected to five years of servitude for the benefit of the unsecured creditors that wasn't part of their contract when they received the credit card in the mail years the section that describes the contents of the plan is thirteen twenty two and under d the reference to plan link doesn't have applicable commitment period as a term if congress wanted to establish a five year we quietly meant for a debtor congress could have easily inserted applicable commitment period right in there under d one and said above median income debtors are getters for five years they didn't they set a cap it's the same cap that up below making income debtor has it's five years congress doesn't want debtors in chapter thirteen for longer than five years that's what chapter eleven is for if you've got more debt or if you got bigger problems go into chapter eleven period a sixteen month period and when you multiply that time period by the amount of money per month you get out you get a dollar amount and it's it's algebraic formula the dollar amount per month th is now newly derived for unsecured creditors it is no longer the way the law used to be where we're trying to figure out what the plan payment should be here for the  storable average in the standardized expenses but is also subject to what's called a liquidation analysis which says ok you've got some exemptions provided by the state if you've got some equity in your house or your car or something married one hundred twenty five to one hundred fifty if you're disabled or over a certain age i believe at sixty two i could be mistaken but the that the creditor would have gotten through the seven trustee to save your house and if you have a really john your house that if you go into a seven the creditor does a motion for relief and then goes out and foreclose on your house because you didn't have a payment plan you better be in chapter thirteen because that's where you have the protection of the court you have the automatic stay he was established pecking order for creditors you know you got to pay your ministry to value then you can your security then the priority the government's got to get paid on the taxes there's a lot of tax cases expenses for the above median income debtor and takes a fair average of of the past income to prevent a debtor from stopping work and then filing seven or seven debtors not subjected to a five year projection and they're not meant to sta years they're given a fresh start we want debtors to have fresh starts they go out they earn more money they pay more taxes they consume it helps the economy we really want to balanced fresh start with a modification of the contract of the answer to your creditor we're dealing with unsecured creditors who have flooded the consumers with risky debt on secured credit is risky it carries the highest interest rate there's no collateral the chances that that a debtor given all this easy money is going to have some kind of life circumstance that puts them in a situation where they can't pay and they default on one obligation and then gee they're hit with a universal default and all of the credit  interest rates are now going to thirty percent so they have to come into court and they've got to get some protection and if they come in and they and they want to volunteer to pay something morally  or or let's say they heard some debt recently because they took a cash advance to pay their mortgage and and they're afraid the creditors are going to sue him you know to keep that debt from being discharged well they might want to volunteer to pay that enough thirteen to prevent i first want to clarify the issue before the court in this particular case there was no issue or cause reverse the with respect to the and not projected disposable income or income being paid to the  three years would you sword and in order to provide the best and most objective means for the court to determine what the projected disposal income may be in a case the court should be able to examine evidence with respect to what the data structures status are at the chapter seven talks about that presumption disposable income and that was actually rebutted by evidence showing otherwise and this has been for a corporation chapter thirteen we believe that is the  the qualified retirement deductions that the code says and five forty one the seventy one that are property state so i think that's a different matter i think that forms well but the presumption referenced in seven refers to what disposable income it is in a chapter thirteen or whether you are to project that number over a sixteen month period as directed by thirteen twenty five  try to rebut the presumption that it would be abusive for the debtor to get a complete fresh start without any payments by introducing special circumstances to modify the current monthly income or just the expenses but but those adjustments the modifications aren't available to the bankruptcy judge under thirteen twenty five you're saying it's strictly reserved for chapter seven absolutely and that's exactly what the