In re Reeves, 327 B.R. 436 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2005) (Dennis R. Dow, Judge)
§ 521(e)(2)(A): trustee and court examine tax returns to determine abuse
Debtor significantly under-reported income at the time of filing petition and accompanying schedules. UST calculated under-reporting to be $1,580.51 per month. Court noted that it could take debtor good-faith into consideration in making its substantial abuse determination and that a significant under-reporting of income without explanation represented evidence of a lack of good faith. Where as here that under-reporting is coupled with debtor’s failure to be forthcoming in schedules, there would be a finding of substantial abuse under the BAPCPA.
In re West, 352 B.R. 482 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Ark. 2006) (Audrey R. Evans, Judge)
Chapter 13 debtor that obtained discharge less than 2 years before is eligible for discharge again
The trustee objected to the debtor’s eligibility for discharge (but not debtor’s eligibility to be in chapter 13) in a case arguing that because the debtor received a discharge less than two years previously in a prior chapter 13 violated § 1328(f) as added by BAPCPA. The first case was filed more than two years before the second case was filed, but the dis-charge was granted within two years. The trustee argued that the applicable 2-year period went from date of prior discharge to date of second filing. The court interpreted the language of the statute literally and held that the language clearly states the period is from date of filing to date of filing. Accordingly, in this case the debtor was eligible for discharge.
In re Bateman, 342 B.R. 540 (Bkrtcy.D.Md. 2006) (Paul Mannes, Judge)
debtor eligible to be in chapter 13 even if not eligible for discharge
“In order for the court to confirm a debtor’s Plan in a case under Chapter 13, the court must find that the Plan has been proposed in good faith. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). This involves an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances of the case. See generally, Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149 (C.A.4 1986); In re Solomon, 67 F.3d 1128, 1134 (C.A.4 1995); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968, 972 (C.A.4 1982). The fact that the debtor is unable to receive a discharge upon consummation of a Chapter 13 Plan is one circumstance for the court to consider. However, the court is mindful of the fact that Congress just completed a massive renovation of the Bankruptcy Code. If it had intended to make ineligibility for a discharge a further bar to filing a bankruptcy case under § 109, it would have done so.”
In re Hudson, 352 B.R. 391 (Bkrtcy.D.Md. 2006) (E. Stephen Derby, Judge)
debtor may obtain credit counseling on day petition is filed
Debtor filed chapter 13 petition after satisfying the credit counseling requirement on same day. Mortgage creditor sought order declaring that debtor was not eligible to be a debtor arguing that Code requires credit counseling to be completed before the day the petition is filed. The court queried, why did Congress use the word “date” rather than “day” in the statute? The court interpeted the term “date” to refer to the moment the petition is filed, citing the language of § 348(f)(1)(A) which provides that property of the estate is the property that existed at the moment the petition is filed.