Proposed monthly allowances much lower than state/county standards.

[screwedupbyRE]

My attorney proposed our monthly allowances that was much lower than state/county standards. For example food allowances for a family of three is approx $626, proposed is $425; Apparel & services is $209 and proposed $50; Transport is approx $800 and proposed is $550. Almost every allowance proposed is below by 20%-40% than the county standard.

Attorney say's he did it to qualify me for ch 13. How will UST react to these numbers? Would he not tell to file for ch 7 instead?

[magyar123]

I think that attorney of yours must have been on something when he said what he said.

[justbroke]

I don't understand it either. Maybe it's a District thing where the DMI has to be positive on Form B22C for a Chapter 13.

Districts are so odd.

[Help!]

Does "proposed" = "actual" here? The attorney is correct in doing this if your actual expenses are less than the standard. The UST, when reviewing a Ch. 7 case, can ask for receipts to show what you actually spend (for example, on rent) even if it's not in excess of the standard.

There is always a chance that the attorney isn't up to the challenge of an above-median Ch. 7. If you go through the means test yourself using your real numbers (that you can document), think you qualify for a 7 and aren't afraid of the possibility of being scrutinized... find a good attorney and go for it!

[screwedupbyRE]

No, proposed <> actual. And I have already filed for ch 13.

My average actuals are approx $980 per month - from 2008 bank statements. (above proposed and standard).

I met with countless attornies and no one took my case. (because of secured/un-secured credit debts that is close to limit lines and income close to 2.5x of median). Though, they were ready to file for 7, but not 13.

On the top my attorney says he don't want to give UST a chance to question anything in the proposed plan. I'm not sure if USTs are dumb and not look at the facts but just at the proposed plan. On the other hand, I'm learning from this board/forum that high income cases are scrutinized extentively. If so, wouldn't trustee ask to convert to 7?