OMG -- does this mean what I think it does?

[justbroke]

I'm confused -- just to clarify: the UST DID file a presumption of abuse based on the ownership costs not being allowed.

I apologize, but I thought you case was the one in which the UST filed that presumption "late". I thought that, in your case, the UST filed a "could not determine" within the 10 days, but finally filed a presumption of abuse after the 10 days. If that's the case, then that is what I'm talking about.

I have also found in Pacer that the local trustee filed a report of no distribution, and the Judge filed a 'no reason for dismissal' ruling.

I don't understand a "no reason for dismissal" ruling, unless you're talking about the 11 USC 521 determination of compliance with the filing requirements. If the UST had not filed a Motion, there would be no "order" filed for any reason (including "no reason for dismissal ruling"). I don't know what the docket entry you were reading in PACER's title was, but if it was the compliance thing, then that's normal.

I do understand from what you said that the UST has 30 days to either withdraw their presumption, or pursue dismissal. And it seems you are saying that the Judge's decision of 'no reason for dismissal' does NOT impact the UST, right?

I don't know what that "ruling" is that you mention. The UST had not filed any motion so I don't see how you have any Order of the court (a/k/a a ruling).

Also, on the means test, line 20 result is 0 (my mortgage payment exceeds the local standard) -- I had thought that the difference between the standard and my actual payment should be/would be listed on line 21 ($441) -- but I'm not sure about it, because I know the full payment is listed on line 42.

You can't enter a negative amount on line 21. It is either $0, or a positive value representing the difference between the standard and your mortgage payment. Otherwise, it's called double dipping.

I pay $120 a month into a SHPS healthcare reimbursement account per month, which seems like it should be listed on line 31. This might also be a place to list what I pay in vet expenses per month?

If you mean "vet" as in "veterinary" and not "veteran", than that expense would not be allowed.

My attorney did not put any contribution to dependents not living at home, but I provide my son (in college) at least $150 a month (really, more like $250). I think that should be listed on the means test.

Did you count your son as a dependent in the household size? If so, then he is already included.

I asked him if what I pay for food for my cats could be listed on line 39?

No, it can't be. Having a pet, however harsh it may seem, is a luxury in the bankruptcy context.

If your car is more than 6 years old and has more than 75,000 miles on it, then you can take the $200 additional expense allowance in most Districts.

[sillywalks]

Dang it -- I lost my first response!

JustBroke --

This is what I found on Pacer under History/Documents: Order that this case is not subject to dismissal under 521(i)(1).. (rjp) It sounds like you are saying this is normal and does not impact the UST.

Both my cars would meet the criteria you mentioned -- if I can take $200 for each car, then I will meet the means test no problem. Crossing my fingers it applies in my district (Northern GA).

My son is a dependent, he is on my tax return as a dependent. However, he is in college and does not live with me. I thought I could put the $150 under the line that says "support for dependents not living with you".

Can I list the $120 I pay into my healthcare reimbursement account each month?

I appreciate you input, thanks!

[justbroke]

Yes, all of those are valid expenses. I was just trying to make sure on the dependent part, because some Trustees will look at your tax return in order to justify their attack of the expense. Since you claim the adult child as a dependent, this would take the wind out of the Trustee's sails. I think the $200 should work in Georgia, but don't quote me.

Yes, the 521 is exactly what I was talking about. It is something that is part of this hyper-technical procedure known as bankruptcy. The court must basically certify that you are in compliance within so many days of the case commencing.

[sunshinepa]

No, it can't be. Having a pet, however harsh it may seem, is a luxury in the bankruptcy context.

JB........confused here, enlighten me. My attorney put my pet expenses on my petition under others, trustee never blinked an eye. Have seen other posters who did the same. Are you saying sillywalks cannot list them? Thanks.

[ValleYum]

No, it can't be. Having a pet, however harsh it may seem, is a luxury in the bankruptcy context.

JB........confused here, enlighten me. My attorney put my pet expenses on my petition under others, trustee never blinked an eye. Have seen other posters who did the same. Are you saying sillywalks cannot list them? Thanks.

I believe OP wanted to list it on Line 31 (Other Necessary Expenses: Health Care) of her Means Test from what she posted. You can't list pet expenses on the Means Test but I have read of many people listing them on their Schedule J which is what I think you are referring to.

BTW: Congrats SO MUCH on your happy news yesterday, too!! Yay!

[justbroke]

JB........confused here, enlighten me. My attorney put my pet expenses on my petition under others, trustee never blinked an eye. Have seen other posters who did the same. Are you saying sillywalks cannot list them? Thanks.

Your attorney probably placed it on Schedule J as a miscellaneous expense. The poster is asking about including it on the means test under medical/healthcare. It can not go there.

There are Trustees, and I'm talking Panel Trustees and Standing Trustees, that allow some reasonable petcare costs. However, this is a case in which the United States Trustee (UST) has intervened and is interested in the case. The UST will scrutinize the expenses and it's likely that the UST will not like that expense at all.

I have seen pet expenses go both ways. Generally, for under-the-median, they go "under-the-radar". For over-the-median where the UST is involved, in a Chapter 7 case, the UST could use it as leverage. Also, if you have petcare costs, make sure you scheduled the pet! If you scheduled no pet, you can have no costs. This is exactly how the UST loves to pull a petition apart and find the hidden money.

[sunshinepa]

Your attorney probably placed it on Schedule J as a miscellaneous expense. The poster is asking about including it on the means test under medical/healthcare. It can not go there.

There are Trustees, and I'm talking Panel Trustees and Standing Trustees, that allow some reasonable petcare costs. However, this is a case in which the United States Trustee (UST) has intervened and is interested in the case. The UST will scrutinize the expenses and it's likely that the UST will not like that expense at all.

I have seen pet expenses go both ways. Generally, for under-the-median, they go "under-the-radar". For over-the-median where the UST is involved, in a Chapter 7 case, the UST could use it as leverage. Also, if you have petcare costs, make sure you scheduled the pet! If you scheduled no pet, you can have no costs. This is exactly how the UST loves to pull a petition apart and find the hidden money.

Thanks JB, guess I didn't catch where she wanted to put them. Thought for a minute my discharge had me delirous!!!!

[justbroke]

Thanks JB, guess I didn't catch where she wanted to put them. Thought for a minute my discharge had me delirous!!!!

You are good to go. "Reasonable" petcare costs are always okay. However, this specific cost was medically related (veterinary bills) and was being placed on line 31 on the means test. I think that "might" bring some unwanted attention.