Creditor objected to confirmation of debtor's amended chapter 13 plan. Creditor contended that debtor improperly calculated both her housing and transportation expenses and failed to apply all of their disposable income to the plan. The debtor's actual monthly housing expense was $640, but she deducted the entire monthly housing allowance of $712 specified in the Local Standards. The debtor's actual monthly transportation expense totaled $95, but she deducted the $471 specified in the Local Standards monthly transportation allowance. The court found that the expenses in the Local Standards are fixed expenses and apply even if a debtor's actual expenses are lower than the Local Standard allowance. Accordingly, the court overruled creditor's objection to debtor's amended plan.
When the Court denies a serial debtor's motion to continue the stay pursuant to section 362(c)(3), the stay terminates as to the property of the estate, and not just as to the property of the debtor.
Below-median income chapter 13 debtor's plan, which proposed to limit contribution of one half of debtor's tax refunds to the first three years of the plan and use the funds to shorten the length of the plan, was not proposed in good faith.
The state brought an adversary proceeding against the debtor, seeking a determination that an obligation for child care overpayments was nondischargeable. The court granted summary judgment to the state, finding Wisconsin Works (W2) Child Care Subsidy overpayments to chapter 7 debtor were domestic support obligations within the meaning of sec. 101(14A) and thus nondischargeable pursuant to sec. 523(a)(5).
Chapter 13 debtors' attorney was "unsecured creditor" entitled to share in the unsecured creditors' pool of monthly disposable income under sec. 1325(b)(1)(B).
Chapter 13 debtor could not deduct student loan payment as an additional expense claim on Line 59 of Form 22C due to "special circumstances."
Chapter 7 debtor owed plaintiff insurance company a subrogation claim resulting from damages to vehicle driven by debtor without permission of owner. Because previous state court action did not litigate the issue of intent, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in sec. 523(a)(6) proceeding was denied.