Source: https://opinions.abi.org/11-usc/%C2%A7-1325b?page=35
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 17:07:54
Document Index: 652882473

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1325', '§ 1325', '§ 1325', '§ 1325', '§ 1325', '§ 1325']

§ 1325(b) | Page 36 | Collier Case Updates
In re Brumm
Read more about In re Brumm
Chapter 13 debtor filed a motion to refinance his principal residence and payoff his confirmed chapter 13 plan early. The chapter 13 trustee objected to the motion, unless the debtor was required to modify the plan's dividend to unsecured creditors from 0 percent to 100 percent.
Debtor allowed to refinance appreciated property to payoff plan early without modification.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Brumm. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
In re Fuger
The matter before the court was the continued hearing on confirmation of the debtors'proposed chapter 13 plan. Specifically, the court was called upon to determine whether the "applicable commitment period"in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) was a monetary or temporal requirement.
Read more about In re Fuger
Trustee's objection to confirmation was denied and section 1325(b)(1)(B)'s "applicable commitment period" language was interpreted as serving as both temporal and monetary requirement.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Fuger. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
In re Barrantes
Read more about In re Barrantes
Debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13. Concurrently with the filing of the petition, debtor submitted a proposed chapter 13 plan. Creditor filed objections to confirmation of the plan.
Creditor's objection to plan confirmation was overruled since proposed plan properly applied all of debtor's projected disposable income.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Barrantes. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtors, a husband and wife, sought confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan of reorganization. The bankruptcy trustee objected to confirmation of the plan on the grounds that the plan failed to satisfy the disposable income test of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).
Read more about In re Lara
Plan was not confirmed since debtors needed to reduce certain expense allowances.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Lara. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
In re Dew
The chapter 13 trustee filed an objection to confirmation with respect to four proposed plans filed after the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, asserting that either the length of the payments or the amount of the payments under the plan were insufficient under 11 U.S.C. § 1325 and related statutory provisions.
Read more about In re Dew
Trustee's objections to chapter 13 plans, including that plans did not provide for general unsecured creditors, were sustained.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Dew. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Read more about In re Grady
Before the court was the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation of debtors'chapter 13 plan on the basis that the plan did not commit all of debtors'disposable income to the plan as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).
Read more about In re Fuller
Court withheld ruling on confirmation objection until it could determine if plan committed all of debtors'disposable income calculated under Form B22C rather than Schedule I.
Court: Southern District of Illinois ( Pepper ) [ Bankruptcy Court ]
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Fuller. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
In re Wilbur
Debtors moved for confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan. The chapter 13 trustee filed an objection. The issue was whether the term "unsecured creditors" in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) referred to non-priority unsecured creditors only. The debtors'position was that the term "unsecured creditors," as found in section 1325(b)(1)(B) included unsecured creditors holding both priority and non-priority claims.
Read more about In re Wilbur
Court, in denying plan confirmation, held that "unsecured creditors" in section 1325(b)(1)(B) referred to non-priority unsecured creditors only.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Wilbur. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member