Originally posted by Redsox
View Post
top Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2 1/2 years and still not confirmed
Collapse
X
-
Just Three of us in our household. Me, My wife and our son. I wish we could get a deduction for pets, especially dogs. Just a wellness check for a dog is 1 or 2 hundred and then food for our dogs is at least 100 a month. I think whomever constructed the BK Law in 2005 didnt really think of all the expences a middle class american has. He was more worried about getting his payoff from the Credit Card Co.
Leave a comment:
-
The baby thing WILL be cleared up. I can't imagine that it wouldn't. Must be some misunderstanding somewhere? That's just nuts and makes ZERO sense to anyone. You can't just deny the existence of another member of the household. May I ask.... how many are in the family? Because the only other thing I can guess is that there are more than are accounted for on a chart somewhere (shades of Olivies' large family vis a vis housing allowances).
Hang in there and keep us posted.
Oh and I realize I got the two posters confused. Should have to bed at a reasonable time lol.
Leave a comment:
-
To ValleYum: The Non-consumer Bankruptcy wasn't available to us because of a technicality. The credit cards I used for my business were under my name and not the business. Also, the ratio of business to personal was 40/60. Believe it or not, not one business came after us personally after we filed Chapter 7 in our business. We signed personal guarantees on an SBA loan, Lease, and our Suppliers, but not one of them came after us. I wish I could've seen the future b/c this is why we filed Chapter 13 to protect our assets from the business failure.
The Baby deduction is ridiculous I agree. I have researched it and have found other Debtors that she has allowed it. So that is my precident(sp?) if she wants to be a harda$$.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Redsox View PostTo ValleYum: No we couldn't file Chapter 7 b/c our income was way over the median for AZ. .
Back to the 13: How in the hell can you not be allowed to count the baby? That is unbelievable!
Maybe since the OP is from AZ we can put on the bat signal for Des! LOL
Leave a comment:
-
I am sure your attorney would like this confirmed at least as much as you would. He's pretty much only paid thru confirmation, right? Why is he not calling the trustee? This is unconscionable from start to finish!!! So much for the theory posited back a post or two about easy tt's in MI. Oh and it must be to the tt's benefit to drag these out, since they are pulling percentages of every payment, right?
Leave a comment:
-
To ValleYum: No we couldn't file Chapter 7 b/c our income was way over the median for AZ.
To LadyinRed: The trustee is objecting to how we calculate DMI. But, her calculations somehow put our payment about $500 over what our net income is every month. So the plan would be doomed under her metrics. The latest is she is not allowing us to use our newborn as a deduction on our b22c. I don't understand why this is so difficult. I wish the trustee could just pick up the phone and call my lawyer and tell him exactly how she want everthing worded so we can just get confirmed.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by magic13 View PostMaybe it is a trade off. I have done research on this site and I have not seen many people from Michigan (Detroit) one of the hardest hit areas of the country complaining about trustees. I think one member, Michigan BK attorney even said some of his clients bk budgets are higher than his own living budget. if they are living like that, why complain
You may be correct. There is one person on this forum who is still in the midst of being confirmed that is having some trouble but for the most part it seems that here in Michigan, everything seems to be pretty smooth. Perhaps because there are so many cases that the trustees are overloaded??? That's just a guess on my part. At any rate, my lawyer assured me that the trustee was a "really nice guy... not out to get you" and that the confirmation would go smoothly and without a hitch. He said that only about 2% to 3% of the cases had any trouble getting confirmed. He was right in our case. I don't know what happens to the two months we paid in before confirmation and I count my blessings to much to really care. I'm sure it will be accounted for in some manner. Considering we are paying zero percent to unsecured creditors, I really can't complain.
Cheers!
Leave a comment:
-
Maybe it is a trade off. I have done research on this site and I have not seen many people from Michigan (Detroit) one of the hardest hit areas of the country complaining about trustees. I think one member, Michigan BK attorney even said some of his clients bk budgets are higher than his own living budget. if they are living like that, why complain
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Redsox View PostI was under the impression that the numbers are the numbers. The calculated payment reflects our dmi so i have no idea why the trustee keeps objecting.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by keepsmiling View PostI think you Michiganders need to rise up and revolt on this. It's a bizarre interpretation of the code, no?
From: 11 USC § 1325 - Confirmation of plan
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the court shall confirm a plan if—
(1) The plan complies with the provisions of this chapter and with the other applicable provisions of this title;
....[snipped remainder of subsection (a) which continues the list of other plan confirmation requirements]...
(b)
(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan unless, as of the effective date of the plan—
(A) the value of the property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the amount of such claim; or
(B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the plan.
11 USC § 1322 - Contents of plan subparagraph (d):
(d)
(1) If the current monthly income of the debtor and the debtor’s spouse combined, when multiplied by 12, is not less than—
(A) in the case of a debtor in a household of 1 person, the median family income of the applicable State for 1 earner;
(B) in the case of a debtor in a household of 2, 3, or 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of the same number or fewer individuals; or
(C) in the case of a debtor in a household exceeding 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of 4 or fewer individuals, plus $525 per month for each individual in excess of 4,
the plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than 5 years.
(2) If the current monthly income of the debtor and the debtor’s spouse combined, when multiplied by 12, is less than—
...[snip portion describing median income for household size]
the plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than 3 years, unless the court, for cause, approves a longer period, but the court may not approve a period that is longer than 5 years.
Leave a comment:
-
So... what happens to all the money paid before you are confirmed? I think you Michiganders need to rise up and revolt on this. It's a bizarre interpretation of the code, no?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by keepsmiling View PostWas just about to say, good thing you aren't in the state (Michigan I think?) that is 5 years from confirmation. How that could be allowed (or your situation) is beyond me.
Leave a comment:
-
Was just about to say, good thing you aren't in the state (Michigan I think?) that is 5 years from confirmation. How that could be allowed (or your situation) is beyond me.
Leave a comment:
bottom Ad Widget
Collapse
Leave a comment: