Wow. I've lost track of how many times I've modified my Chapter 13 plan. This might be my 4th!
It's going ok I guess, except my worthy opponent Mr. T passed me off to an underling, staff assistant or some such - - which I find sooo disappointing. (I hope Mr. T. is ok. I know he's "not my friend" but I kinda like him and don't want to see anything bad happen to him.)
Anyway this modification is nearly identical to one I did last year about this time, due to increased income/temporary employment.
Last year there were no trustee objections.
This year I have Trustee objections. How annoying!
I didn't file a a 2016b Attorney Compensation Statement. (Gee. I wonder why that might be?)
The proposed order requires the secured creditors(s) to release the
underlying lien(s) prior to discharge in violation of 11 USC 1325(a)(5)(B)(i). See
paragraph 9 of the proposed order. (Except that it doesn't. In fact, it pretty much quotes 11 USC 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) ver batim. But apparently he didn't read it.
Debtor(s) have failed to dedicate all of their projected disposable income to be
received in the applicable commitment period for the following reason(s):
Per budget. Months 20-21. (I specifically requested a moratorium on months 20 and 21 to pay for unbudgeted moving expenses, and spent nearly every dime of it.) (Last year I only requested a moratorium on one month, this time it took 2 because gas is so much higher.)
Per the proposed modification, debtor is anticipating a
temporary job for 3 months, but there is no budget on file to support this
increase in income. According to the proposed modification, it seems as
though this new temporary full time employment has not been accepted. (What a goof! We did this last year. It's a freakin' rerun, and he can't read the script. I filed my modification in advance and the budget after I started employment. Still my modification was approved by the trustee without objection. What does he think, nearly 2 years into this thing and now I am just making this stuff up?)
Anyway, I submitted a PROJECTED I and J with my response just to appease him, with the stipulation in my response that the figures were estimated and subject to change within 30 days of starting employment.
Other: In the proposed Modification, Order and Plan the total base amount to be paid as well as the total number of months to be paid are not correct. The proposed Order shows (secured) to be paid variable monthly payments which is not allowed.
Months to be paid are correct. I don't know where he comes up with this stuff. Variable payments? Yeah. Sort of. If having increased income and increasing my payment for the three months (because I am trying to shave months off the end of the plan) makes it variable. I modified the Plan once before and changed the amount of the payment to the secured, and that was not objected to as variable. And I'm not aware of any provision of the bankruptcy code that says you shouldn't pay all of your DMI into the plan just to keep the secured creditor's payment constant. I know that you have to treat claims within classes equally, and I left the unsecureds alone. They are still getting less than 1%.
The kicker. He says the plan appears to be underfunded. I'm guessing because he forgot to take into consideration that a modest temporary increase in the payment and fewer months results in less interest being paid to the secured. $20.25 less. (whoopee, huh? But it does make a difference in being underfunded! Yeah, I am that close to the wire.)
I also tried to call him to discuss this, but he doesn't answer or return my call. As if I am not aware that they hash this stuff out with attorneys over the phone all the time. So since he doesn't want to play nice, I concluded my response to his by requesting the modification be approved as submitted and for such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate under FRBP 9011(c). Not that I expect to get any, but just a "slam" in that guy's general direction. I want "my" trustee back!
Beyond that, I guess my plan is going pretty good, all on track and everything. But, the month to month is getting harder. I want this over with sooner, and trying to get it knocked down from 58 months to 55 months. December will be 24 months. I am going to have to prepay a LOT of regular expenses with the extra money this time in order to keep the month to month feasible for another year. Increased costs of gas and groceries alone are just making it really tough. I think I have to make it to 36 months at least before I can even think of a hardship discharge, if it comes to that, right? Anyway, that is what I had to deal with and my hearing is October 5th.
It's going ok I guess, except my worthy opponent Mr. T passed me off to an underling, staff assistant or some such - - which I find sooo disappointing. (I hope Mr. T. is ok. I know he's "not my friend" but I kinda like him and don't want to see anything bad happen to him.)
Anyway this modification is nearly identical to one I did last year about this time, due to increased income/temporary employment.
Last year there were no trustee objections.
This year I have Trustee objections. How annoying!
I didn't file a a 2016b Attorney Compensation Statement. (Gee. I wonder why that might be?)
The proposed order requires the secured creditors(s) to release the
underlying lien(s) prior to discharge in violation of 11 USC 1325(a)(5)(B)(i). See
paragraph 9 of the proposed order. (Except that it doesn't. In fact, it pretty much quotes 11 USC 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) ver batim. But apparently he didn't read it.
Debtor(s) have failed to dedicate all of their projected disposable income to be
received in the applicable commitment period for the following reason(s):
Per budget. Months 20-21. (I specifically requested a moratorium on months 20 and 21 to pay for unbudgeted moving expenses, and spent nearly every dime of it.) (Last year I only requested a moratorium on one month, this time it took 2 because gas is so much higher.)
Per the proposed modification, debtor is anticipating a
temporary job for 3 months, but there is no budget on file to support this
increase in income. According to the proposed modification, it seems as
though this new temporary full time employment has not been accepted. (What a goof! We did this last year. It's a freakin' rerun, and he can't read the script. I filed my modification in advance and the budget after I started employment. Still my modification was approved by the trustee without objection. What does he think, nearly 2 years into this thing and now I am just making this stuff up?)
Anyway, I submitted a PROJECTED I and J with my response just to appease him, with the stipulation in my response that the figures were estimated and subject to change within 30 days of starting employment.
Other: In the proposed Modification, Order and Plan the total base amount to be paid as well as the total number of months to be paid are not correct. The proposed Order shows (secured) to be paid variable monthly payments which is not allowed.
Months to be paid are correct. I don't know where he comes up with this stuff. Variable payments? Yeah. Sort of. If having increased income and increasing my payment for the three months (because I am trying to shave months off the end of the plan) makes it variable. I modified the Plan once before and changed the amount of the payment to the secured, and that was not objected to as variable. And I'm not aware of any provision of the bankruptcy code that says you shouldn't pay all of your DMI into the plan just to keep the secured creditor's payment constant. I know that you have to treat claims within classes equally, and I left the unsecureds alone. They are still getting less than 1%.
The kicker. He says the plan appears to be underfunded. I'm guessing because he forgot to take into consideration that a modest temporary increase in the payment and fewer months results in less interest being paid to the secured. $20.25 less. (whoopee, huh? But it does make a difference in being underfunded! Yeah, I am that close to the wire.)
I also tried to call him to discuss this, but he doesn't answer or return my call. As if I am not aware that they hash this stuff out with attorneys over the phone all the time. So since he doesn't want to play nice, I concluded my response to his by requesting the modification be approved as submitted and for such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate under FRBP 9011(c). Not that I expect to get any, but just a "slam" in that guy's general direction. I want "my" trustee back!
Beyond that, I guess my plan is going pretty good, all on track and everything. But, the month to month is getting harder. I want this over with sooner, and trying to get it knocked down from 58 months to 55 months. December will be 24 months. I am going to have to prepay a LOT of regular expenses with the extra money this time in order to keep the month to month feasible for another year. Increased costs of gas and groceries alone are just making it really tough. I think I have to make it to 36 months at least before I can even think of a hardship discharge, if it comes to that, right? Anyway, that is what I had to deal with and my hearing is October 5th.
Bankruptcy Wizard
Comment