UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRENDA J. BLACKSHEAR, 

 Debtor, 

_____________________________/ 

 Civil Action No. 14-14399 

DAVID WM. RUSKIN, Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

 

 Appellant, 

 Bankruptcy No. 14-43656 

v. Honorable Marci B. McIvor

 

BRENDA J. BLACKSHEAR, 

 Appellee. 

_____________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S 

ORDER CONFIRMING DEBTOR’S SECOND AMENDED CHAPTER 13 

PLAN 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Appellant David Wm. Ruskin, the Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee, appeals 

the order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan confirming 

the second amended Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan of Brenda J. Blackshear, the 

Appellee and debtor in this case. The trustee claims that the plan should not have 

been confirmed because Blackshear failed to satisfy three particular conditions of 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 188
2 

confirmation codified at 11 U.S.C. § 1325, the Bankruptcy Code provision 

governing confirmation of Chapter 13 plans. 

The matter is fully briefed. Upon review of the record and briefs on appeal, 

the Court concludes that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court will affirm the 

Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming Blackshear’s second amended plan. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Blackshear filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on March 7, 2014. The 

petition was filed on behalf of herself only; her husband did not join the petition. 

Blackshear and her husband live together and are not separated. 

Together with her Chapter 13 petition, Blackshear filed a “Schedule I,” a 

form used to calculate monthly income, a “Schedule J,” a form used to calculate 

monthly expenses, and a Form B22C, Chapter 13 Statement of Current Monthly 

Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and Disposable Income. The 

Schedule I and Schedule J were later amended. 

On her amended Schedule I, Blackshear indicated that her net monthly 

income is $4,406. Blackshear also indicated that her husband’s net monthly 

income is “0.00,” even though the amended Schedule I also reflects that her 

husband was then employed as a bus driver with the City of Detroit. Although the 

husband’s income is not reflected on the amended Schedule I, Blackshear wrote on 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 189
3 

Form B22C that her husband’s average gross monthly income during the sixmonth period preceding the filing of Blackshear’s bankruptcy petition is $1,995 

and furnished to the trustee pay stubs for the husband’s position as a bus driver. In 

addition, Blackshear indicated on the amended Schedule I that her husband 

“contributes approximately $600 per month to the household expenses.”1

On her amended Schedule J, Blackshear indicated that her monthly expenses 

are $2,780, resulting in a monthly surplus after expenses of $1,626 (i.e., $4,406 

minus $2,780). Blackshear’s second amended Chapter 13 plan, which was 

confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court over the trustee’s objection after a hearing on 

September 25, 2014, calls for monthly plan payments of $1,650 for a period of 

sixty months.2

The trustee appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the second 

amended Chapter 13 plan. The matter is now fully briefed and ready for decision. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 The requirements for confirmation of a proposed plan under Chapter 13 of 

the Bankruptcy Code are set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1325. Shaw v. Aurgroup Fin. 

Credit Union, 552 F.3d 447, 462 (6th Cir. 2009). Blackshear bears “the ultimate 

 

1

 Blackshear’s net monthly income of $4,406 includes the $600 monthly 

contribution received from her husband. 

2

 The reasoning underlying the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to confirm 

Blackshear’s plan is better understood in the context of the legal issues raised and 

is thus discussed below.

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 190
4 

burden of proof to show the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325 have been met,” In 

re Lofty, 437 B.R. 578, 584 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010), a burden that the trustee 

contends is not satisfied here. 

Specifically, the trustee argues that Blackshear failed to satisfy three 

particular requirements for confirmation. First, the trustee argues that Blackshear 

has not shown that all of her disposable income will be allocated to plan payments. 

See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). Under § 1325(b)(1), “[i]f the trustee . . . objects to 

the confirmation of [a Chapter 13] plan,” as the trustee here has done, “then the 

court may not approve the plan unless . . . the plan provides that all of the debtor’s 

projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period 

. . . will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the plan.” 

Second, the trustee argues that Blackshear has not shown that “the plan has 

been proposed in good faith,” 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3), a determination “requir[ing] 

an inquiry into all the facts and circumstances of a debtor’s proposed plan.” In re 

Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030, 1033 (6th Cir. 1988). 

Finally, the trustee argues that Blackshear has not satisfied the “feasibility” 

requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6), requiring a showing that she “will be able 

to make all payments under the plan and to comply with the plan,” 11 U.S.C. § 

1325(a)(6), or, stated differently, “that it is likely that [she] will have the necessary 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 191
5 

resources to make all payments as directed by the plan.” In re Fantasia, 211 B.R. 

420, 423 (1st Cir. BAP 1997). 

For the reasons that follow, the Court rejects the trustee’s argument that 

Blackshear failed to satisfy these confirmation requirements and affirms the 

Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation order. 

As the trustee objected to the confirmation of Blackshear’s second amended 

Chapter 13 plan, the Bankruptcy Court could not confirm the plan unless satisfied 

that Blackshear is committing all of her disposable income to plan payments. 11 

U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). “Disposable income” is defined as “current monthly income 

received by the debtor . . . less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” for 

certain approved items. Id. § 1325(b)(2), (3). “Current monthly income,” in turn, 

is defined as “the average monthly income from all sources that the debtor 

receives” in the six-month period preceding the bankruptcy filing, “includ[ing] any 

amount paid by any entity other than the debtor . . . on a regular basis for the 

household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.” Id. § 101(10A). 

Current monthly income, then, includes “[c]ontributions to household expenses by 

a nonfiling spouse.” In re Rodgers, No. 14-41824-13, 2014 WL 4988388, at *1 

(Bankr. W.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2014). Therefore, to calculate the disposable income of 

a married debtor living with a non-filing spouse, a court must know whether the 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 192
6 

debtor’s non-filing spouse regularly contributes to the debtor’s household expenses 

and, if so, the amount of such contributions. 

Here, the Bankruptcy Court knew that Blackshear’s husband contributed 

$600 per month to Blackshear’s household expenses, as Blackshear disclosed this 

information on her Schedule I. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court had the information it 

needed about the finances of Blackshear’s husband to calculate Blackshear’s 

disposable income. See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1325.11[4][b] p. 1325-60 (16th 

ed. 2015) (“The definition [of disposable income] . . . makes clear that the income 

of other household members, including a nondebtor spouse, can be considered only 

to the extent that it is regularly contributed to household expenses of the debtor and 

the debtor’s dependents.” (emphasis added)); In re Quarterman, 342 B.R. 647, 651 

(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006) (“[C]urrent monthly income does not include all the 

income of the non-debtor spouse, but rather only amounts expended on a regular 

basis for household expenses.” (emphasis in original)). 

However, the trustee argues that without additional information about the 

husband’s finances – namely, his income and expenses – the Bankruptcy Court had 

no way of knowing that the husband is contributing to household expenses in an 

appropriate amount. Whether the husband is contributing to household expenses in 

an appropriate amount impacts whether Blackshear is devoting all of her 

disposable income to plan payments, as required by § 1325(b)(1), and whether the 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 193
7 

plan was proposed in good faith, as required by § 1325(a)(3). This is because (1) 

without knowing the husband’s income and expenses, and thus how much money 

he has remaining after paying his own expenses, it is impossible to assess whether 

$600 per month is too much or too little for him to be paying in household 

expenses; (2) whether Blackshear’s husband is contributing an appropriate amount 

to household expenses bears on whether Blackshear is committing all of her 

disposable income to plan payments because (a) the more her husband contributes 

to household expenses, the greater Blackshear’s current monthly income, as 

current monthly income includes amounts paid by a non-filing spouse on a regular 

basis for the household expenses; (b) the greater Blackshear’s current monthly 

income, the greater her disposable income; and (c) the greater Blackshear’s 

disposable income, the more money she can devote to plan payments. In other 

words, as one court has put it, “without . . . information as to [the non-filing 

spouse’s] income and expenses, it is impossible to tell whether the [d]ebtor is, in 

effect, subsidizing [the non-filing spouse’s] expenses at the expense of [the 

debtor’s] unsecured creditors.” In re Rodgers, 2014 WL 4988388, at *3. 

The trustee also argues that without knowing the income and expenses of 

Blackshear’s husband, the Bankruptcy Court could not determine whether 

Blackshear’s proposed second amended Chapter 13 plan is feasible, as required by 

§ 1325(a)(6), because without knowing how much the husband can afford to pay in 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 194
8 

household expenses, the Bankruptcy Court and Blackshear cannot be sufficiently 

sure that Blackshear can count on receiving a $600 contribution every month from 

her husband; if Blackshear does not receive a monthly contribution from her 

husband in the anticipated amount of $600, she may not have enough money to 

satisfy her obligation under the plan. 

 There is case law supporting the trustee’s position that knowing the nonfiling spouse’s income and expenses is necessary to determine both whether the 

debtor is devoting all disposable income to plan payments under § 1325(b)(1), and 

whether the plan is proposed in good faith under § 1325(a)(3). For example, the 

Chapter 13 debtor in Rodgers, the principle case on which the trustee relies, lived 

with his non-filing wife, who earned an estimated $60,000 to $70,000 per year and 

contributed “some funds” to the running of the household. 2014 WL 4988388, at 

*1. However, because the spouse “want[ed] no involvement whatsoever in the 

[d]ebtor’s bankruptcy case and refuse[d] to cooperate in providing the Trustee with 

information about her financial circumstances,” the debtor listed no income 

attributable to his wife on the Schedule I, nor did the debtor indicate how much his 

spouse contributed to household expenses, prompting the trustee to object to 

confirmation of the plan. Id. 

The bankruptcy court sustained the trustee’s objection and granted the 

trustee’s motion to deny confirmation, holding that “a Plan . . . cannot be approved 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 195
9 

without disclosure of regular contributions to the household by a non-debtor.” Id.

at *2. The court reasoned that because “§ 1325(b) requires a Chapter 13 debtor to 

devote all ‘current monthly income’ to plan payments,” and because “‘current 

monthly income’ expressly includes ‘any amount paid by any entity other than the 

debtor . . . on a regular basis for the household expenses of the debtor or the 

debtor’s dependents,’ . . . . there is no way of knowing whether [the debtor] is 

contributing all ‘current monthly income’ to the Plan” “ without knowing what [the 

non-filing spouse] contributes to the household . . . expenses.” Id. The court also 

held that it could not determine whether the plan was proposed in good faith 

because “without . . . information as to [the non-filing spouse’s] income and 

expenses, it is impossible to tell whether the [d]ebtor is, in effect, subsidizing [the 

non-filing spouse’s] expenses at the expense of [the debtor’s] unsecured creditors.” 

Id. at *3. Thus, the court wrote that “disclosure of a nonfiling spouse’s income is 

not ‘voluntary.’” Id. at *2. 

 The bankruptcy courts in In re Cardillo, 170 B.R. 490 (Bankr. D.N.H. 

1994), and In re Kuhns, No. 11-31518, 2011 WL 4713225 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Oct. 

7, 2011), two additional cases on which the trustee relies, reached the same 

conclusion on facts similar to those in Rodgers. The court in Cardillo denied 

confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, concluding that the debtor’s failure to disclose 

the income and expenses of his non-filing spouse precluded both a determination 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 196
10 

under § 1325(b)(1) that the debtor was devoting all of his income to plan 

payments, and a determination under § 1325(a)(3) that the plan was proposed in 

good faith. In so holding, the court wrote that “a non-debtor spouse’s income and 

expenses are to be taken into consideration when determining whether all of the 

debtor’s disposable income is being applied to the plan.” 170 B.R. at 492. 

 Similarly, in Kuhns, the court dismissed the debtor’s Chapter 7 case because 

the debtor failed to disclose his non-filing wife’s income and the amount she 

contributed to household expenses. 2011 WL 4713225, at *3. The debtor testified 

that he did not know his wife’s income or the amount she contributed to household 

expenses, although the debtor knew that his wife was employed and paid some of 

the household expenses, because his wife refused to share this information with 

him. Id. at *1-2. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court dismissed the case, holding 

that “while it may not be necessary for a non-filing spouse’s income in excess of 

that paid on a regular basis for the household expenses of a debtor and the debtor’s 

dependents to be applied to pay the debtor’s creditors, the spouse’s income 

information is necessary” to determine whether a Chapter 7 case is abusive under 

the code provision governing dismissal and conversion of Chapter 7 cases. Id. at 

*3. 

 The factual circumstances of Rodgers, Cardillo, and Kuhns are similar to, 

but not exactly the same as, those in the present case. The crucial difference 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 197
11 

between the present case and the three cases on which the trustee relies is that the 

Bankruptcy Court in the present case had more information regarding the financial 

circumstances of the non-filing spouse than did the courts in the other three cases. 

First, the Bankruptcy Court here knew the amount that Blackshear’s husband 

contributed to household expenses, as Blackshear disclosed that information on her 

Schedule I. Conversely, the bankruptcy courts in Rodgers, Cardillo, and Kuhns

did not know the amount of the non-filing spouses’ contributions to household 

expenses, as that information was undisclosed. 

Second and of equal importance, the Bankruptcy Court in the present case, 

unlike the courts in the other cases, had a sense for the amount of monthly income 

earned by the non-filing spouse in the months preceding the debtor’s filing. 

Blackshear’s counsel indicated during the hearing before the Bankruptcy Court on 

September 25, 2014 that pay stubs in connection with the husband’s job as a bus 

driver for the City of Detroit were furnished to the trustee, and offered to furnish 

additional pay stubs.3

 In addition, although Blackshear did not disclose her 

husband’s income on the Schedule I, she did disclose it on Form B22C. On that 

form, Blackshear indicated that her husband’s average gross monthly income 

during the six-month period preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition was 

 

3

 Counsel also informed the Bankruptcy Court that the pay stubs reflected that the 

husband’s wages were subject to active garnishment, that “[h]e’s got his own 

creditors attacking him,” and that he was not “living a lavish lifestyle or . . . 

squirreling away all this money to deal with things. 9/25/14 Hr’g at 4, 6. 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 198
12 

$1,995.46. Of that amount, Blackshear disclosed on her Schedule I that her 

husband was contributing approximately $600 to household expenses, leaving 

approximately $1,400 unaccounted for. Blackshear’s counsel represented to the 

Bankruptcy Court at the September 25 hearing that although he “can’t explain 

where [the excess] money goes” due to “[t]he inability [of the husband] to even 

describe to me what his expenses were,” “what became apparent was that he 

contributes . . . at most on average $600 in any given month” to household 

expenses and that, regardless of how his remaining income was being spent, if at 

all, “[Blackshear] wasn’t receiving the benefit of it.” 9/25/14 Hr’g at 5-6 (ECF No. 

10). 

In sum, the Bankruptcy Court knew how much Blackshear’s husband was 

contributing per month to household expenses, and it also had a sense of his 

monthly income. Conversely, in Rodgers, Cardillo, and Kuhns, this critical 

information about the finances of the non-filing spouses was undisclosed and 

unknown, making it impossible for the bankruptcy courts in those cases to 

calculate the disposable income of the respective debtors and to determine whether 

the plans in those cases were proposed in good faith. Thus, in the present case, 

significantly less information about the finances of the non-filing spouse was 

unknown to the Bankruptcy Court. The only pertinent information about the 

finances of Blackshear’s husband that was unknown to the Bankruptcy Court was 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 199
13 

what the husband was doing with the portion of his monthly income – 

approximately $1,400 – that he was not contributing to household expenses. At the 

September 25, 2014 hearing, the Bankruptcy Court explored this issue with 

counsel and accepted Blackshear’s position that she was not benefiting from the 

unaccounted-for portion of her husband’s income. The Bankruptcy Court 

concluded that “even if [Blackshear’s husband] had a lavish lifestyle, there’s 

nothing that [the court] can do . . . if it’s not benefiting [Blackshear]” because 

“there’s nothing [the court] can do to compel [Blackshear’s husband] to contribute 

[more money] to [Blackshear’s] plan.” 9/25/14 Hr’g at 7. The Bankruptcy Court 

also noted that no creditors had objected to confirmation of the plan and that “even 

if [Blackshear’s] husband should contribute a few more dollars, there’s no way to 

compel him to do so.” Id. at 12. Finding that “th[e] plan is in the best interests of 

all creditors” and that Blackshear “is contributing the maximum amount she could” 

to plan payments, the Bankruptcy Court overruled the trustee’s objection and 

confirmed the plan. 9/25/14 Hr’g at 12. 

 The Court will affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming 

Blackshear’s Chapter 13 plan. The factual differences between the present case 

and the cases on which the trustee relies render those cases inapplicable here. 

Although the Bankruptcy Court did not have a complete picture of the finances of 

Blackshear’s husband, it had enough information about his financial situation to 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 200
14 

calculate Blackshear’s disposable income and conclude that Blackshear was 

devoting all of that income to plan payments, that the plan was proposed in good 

faith, and that the plan is feasible. 

The good faith determination “requires an inquiry into all the facts and 

circumstances of a debtor’s proposed plan,” In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d at 1033, 

and a plan lacks good faith “[o]nly if there has been a showing of serious debtor 

misconduct or abuse.” 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1325.04[1] p. 1325-17. 

Considering the totality of circumstances here, the present record contains ample 

support for the Bankruptcy Court’s implicit conclusion that the plan was proposed 

in good faith, and its conclusion is entitled to deference on review. See id. at 1325-

18 (“Because the determination regarding good faith is fact-intensive, it is usually 

not reversible on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous or based on an error of 

law.”). 

The same goes for the Bankruptcy Court’s implicit conclusion that the plan 

is feasible. “The bankruptcy court may refuse to confirm a chapter 13 plan if the 

court finds that the debtor will be unable to make all payments under the plan.” Id.

¶ 1325.07[1] p. 1325-48. “Thus, when a debtor’s budget shows a clear inability to 

make the proposed plan payments, the plan is not entitled to confirmation.” Id. 

Here, the Bankruptcy Court was satisfied based on all the information before it that 

Blackshear would continue receiving a monthly contribution of $600 from her 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 201
15 

husband; there is nothing in the record suggesting a “clear inability” of the husband 

to contribute to household expenses in the designated amount of $600, and there is 

thus nothing to suggest that Blackshear will falter on her plan payments because of 

her husband’s failure to contribute. The Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion on 

feasibility is entitled to deference on review and will not be disturbed. See id. at 

1325-49 (“The determination of feasibility must be done on a case by case basis 

and is not subject to per se rules. Ordinarily, the bankruptcy court’s findings on 

feasibility should be given considerable deference.” (footnotes omitted)). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated, the order of the Bankruptcy Court confirming 

Blackshear’s second amended Chapter 13 plan is AFFIRMED. 

 

Dated: May 20, 2015 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Thomas D. DeCarlo, Esq. 

Christopher M. Carey, Esq. 

Dario D. Ianni, Esq. 

Michael P. Hogan, Esq. 

2:14-cv-14399-PJD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 202