### The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the District of South Dakota.

The Honorable Irvin N. Hoyt, Chief Judge, United State s 2 

### Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Dakota. ___________ No. 95-4200

___________ In re: Junior Sebastian * Hammrich; Joyce Marie Hammrich, * * Debtors. *

__________________ * * Junior Sebastian Hammrich; * Appeal from the United States Joyce Marie Hammrich, * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Debtors/Appellants, * * v. * * John S. Lovald, Chapter 12 * Trustee, * * Claimant/Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 12, 1996 Filed: October 21, 1996

___________ Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Junior and Joyce Hammrich appeal the district court's judgmen t 1 affirmin g the bankruptcy court's order that they pay $95,885.86 i n 2 disp osable income to their unsecured and undersecured creditors befor e receiving a discharge. We affirm.

### -2- I.
Junior and Joyce Hammrich filed a voluntary petition fo r reorganization under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 26, 1987
. The p lan was amended and went into effect in October of 1989 and was t o terminate on January 1, 1993. The plan required that the debtors pay all disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(1) over the three years of th e plan.

Th e debtors filed their final report and account and requested a dischar ge on March 11, 1993. The trustee and Farm Credit Bank of Omah a objected to the discharge and requested that the court make a disposable income determination. After two evidentiary hearings, the bankruptcy cour t conclu ded the debtors had unpaid disposable income of $95,885.86 an d ordered th em to pay that amount in order to obtain a discharge. Th e distri ct court affirmed, finding that the bankruptcy court "performed a thoroug h analysis of the disposable income issue and made a carefull y considered decision."

II.
We review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear err or and its legal conclusions de novo. Markmueller v. C ase , 51 F.3d 775, 776 (8th Cir. 1995). While the initial burden is on the trustee to show that the debtors are not contributing all of their disposable income to the plan, the ultimate burden lies with the debtors to sho w that they are satisfying that obligation. In re Kuhlman , 118 B.R. 731, 738 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1990).

Debtors contend that the bankruptcy court erred in its calculatio n of disposable income. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the bankruptcy court' s findings in calculating disposable income were not clearly erroneous.
The Code defines "disposable income" as

### -3- incom e which is received by the debtor and which is no t reasonably necessary to be expended (A) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; or (B) for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation , preservation, and operation of the debtor's business.

11 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Determining disposable income is "a fact-intensiv e inq uiryinto whether debtor has `income which is in excess of tha t
reasona bly

required for maintenance and continuation of [its] farmin g operation from one ye ar to the next.'" Broken Bow Ranch, Inc. v. Farmers Home Admin. , 33 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original ) (quoting In re Coffman , 90 B.R. 878, 885 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1988)). The amount by which the debtors' income exceeds their obligations at the end of their plan, after accounting for carryover fu nds sufficient to continue the their farming ope ration, is deemed disposable income. Broken Bow , 33 F.3d at 1009.

The bankr uptcy court found, and the district court agreed, that the debtor s' total inventories amounted to $281,601.00 and that their tota l obligations amounted to $16,980.00, for a dispos able income calculation of $264,621. The court then determined that the debtors would requir e $168,735.14 to continue their farming operation and subtracted that amount from its disposable i ncome determination in arriving at a final figure of $95,885.86.

The debtors contend first that the bankruptcy court erred b y including in total inventories 326 calves on hand at the termination o f their plan. The debtors maintain that these calves were not marketabl e commodities to be included in the inventory part of the calculation becaus e they had not yet reac hed the weight at which they are normally sold. The bankruptcy court found that the calves had some value and were saleable on the date of

### -4-

termination.
Although the debtors may not have received the same amount they would receive upon a sale o f these calves at their full weight, the calves were of some value at term ination of the debtors' plan. Simply having to sell the calves before the date debtors normally brought calves to market does not render them completely unmarketable. Thus, we conclude that th e bankruptcy court's fi nding that the calves were marketable commodities is not clearly erroneous and its inclusion of them in the disposable income calculation was proper.

The debtors also assert that the cou rt erred when it included in the disposable income calculation government payments received afte r termination of the plan. Even though the paymen ts were not received until after termination of the plan, they were attributable to debtors' farming operation during the plan and were thus properly included in the disposabl e income calculation. Broken Bow , 33 F.3d at 1009.

Debtors' contend that the bankruptcy court erred in excludin g repayment of a loan and payment of 1992 real est ate taxes from the expense portion of the calcul ation. Only those obligations that exist at the end of the plan period are to be included in the disposable income calculation , however. See Broken Bow , 33 F.3d at 1009. Neither the loan nor the real estate taxes were due at the end of the plan per iod. Therefore, the court did not err in exclud ing those amounts from its calculation of disposable income.
The debtors' final contention is tha t the court erred in not leaving adequ ate funds for them to continue their farming operation. Th e bankruptcy court made a detailed analysis of the amount of funds necessary to con tinue the debtors' farming operation. This determination i s supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.

### -5- The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.