2 1/2 years and still not confirmed

[Redsox]

We are still not confirmed after 2 1/2 years. The trustee keeps objecting to our payment. Is there a point where you can say to your lawyer, screw it let a judge decide? In a chapter 13 shouldnt your payment be your DMI? We are not paying back 100% and we are in Arizona. My wife thinks the Trustee doesn't like us because at the meeting of creditors the trustee was a snit to us. I just want to get confirmed and finishnthe plan. Any suggestions?

[HHM]

2 1/2 years....I suppose I will take your word for it; the judge must be asleep at the wheel, there are very few BK judges that would let a case linger for that long.

I don't think it has anything to do with the trustee liking you or not liking you. But yes, you can instruct your attorney to take the issue to hearing. Honestly, that should have been done over a year ago.

What exactly is the problem?

[Redsox]

Well our case is rather complex. We filed at the end of 2009 after our retail store we owned filed ch 7. My wife and I had to file chapter 13 because we make way over the AZ median. We had a rental home that the trustee wanted us to surrender so we did that which took over a year to complete. Then we had a baby and our income decreased due to my wife working part time. All along our attorney kept filing b22c and amended payments which the trustee kept objecting. Basically wanting us to pay more money. I 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. So now we are filing one more time and if she objects we are going to petition the judge and let him rule. This is ridiculous! I am glad that AZ chapter 13 starts with the first payment not when its confiRmed.

[keepsmiling]

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.

[TheBajan]

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.

KeepSmiling... you are correct. Michigan doesn't begin until the plan is confirmed. We filed and began payments in February but we were confirmed [on schedule] in April so we are only one payment into our plan. I'm curious about how many other states wait for confirmation to start the clock or did I just 'get lucky'?

[keepsmiling]

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?

[ValleYum]

To the OP: A non-consumer Chapter 7 was not possible for you??

[LadyInTheRed]

I think you Michiganders need to rise up and revolt on this. It's a bizarre interpretation of the code, no?

Yeah, I don't see how anyone would interpret the code that way.

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.

The applicable commitment period is defined in:

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.

I don't see how a plan can ever require payments for longer than 5 years after the first plan payment, regardless of when the plan is confirmed. If we haven't heard about it from so may people, I wouldn't believe it. Does anyone know the logic for the plan length beginning at confirmation even if it means the payments continue for longer than 5 years?

[LadyInTheRed]

I 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.

Your trustee must be objecting to how you are calculating your dmi. Maybe objecting to certain expenses? The trustee doesn't object without providing any basis for the objection. If you don't understand the reason for the objection, you should have your attorney explain it to you.

[magic13]

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

[TheBajan]

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

Magic,

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!

[Redsox]

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.

[keepsmiling]

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?

[ValleYum]

To ValleYum: No we couldn't file Chapter 7 b/c our income was way over the median for AZ. .

Yes, but in a non-consumer bankruptcy the median income/means test don't come into play. 51% or more of your debt had to be business related (rental home, personally guaranteed leases, business credit cards, tax debt, etc) to qualify for this. You can Google it but I just thought I'd toss it out there just in case it was pertinent to you.

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

[Redsox]

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$$.