Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): filed August 1, 2003). Various bankruptcy courts have disagreed on whether a live-in companion’s financial circumstances should be considered under the “ability to pay” test. Although statutory authority is absent, this Court agrees with the reasoning of those courts which conclude that its inclusion is necessary if they are financially interdependent on each other. See e.g. Short v. Short (In re Short), 232 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2000), In re Crosswhite, 148 F.3d 879 (7th Cir.1998); Simon v. Murrell (In re Murrell), 257 B.R. 386 (Bankr.D.Conn. 2001); Foto v. Foto (In re Foto), 258 B.R. 567 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2000); Cleveland v. Cleveland (In re Cleveland), 198 B.R. 394(Bankr.N.D.Ga.1996); Koons, 206 B.R. 768. Cf. Willey v. Willey (In re Willey), 198 B.R. 1007 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996)(<HOLDING>). In this case, a look at the complete economic 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a public employee plaintiff is not required to show that the defendants action had an actual chilling effect (B) holding remarriage of exspouse and loss of income not to be a substantial change in circumstances (C) holding that projected disposable income for an abovemedian income debtor would not include a deduction for contractual payments on undersecured debt that the debtor would not actually be required to pay because the plan bifurcated the claim or surrendered the collateral (D) holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default (E) holding that imputing girlfriends income on debtor could lead to a chilling effect on courtship and remarriage of divorced partners
Output (English): holding that a public employee plaintiff is not required to show that the defendants action had an actual chilling effect