Legal Opinion

In re Martin

United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois

Decided January 24, 2012No. 11-82075PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

THOMAS L. PERKINS, Chief Judge.

Whether an above-median chapter 13 debtor with negative monthly disposable *800income is nevertheless required to propose a five-year plan, an issue that has sharply divided courts, turns on the interpretation of the phrase “applicable commitment period.” This Court determines that a five-year plan is required of every above-median debtor as a condition of confirmation.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Debtor, Denise E. Martin (DEBTOR), works as an accounting assistant for a sizeable accounting firm. She has been employed there for nineteen years and earns…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Freytag v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Hamilton v. LanningSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Ricky Crawford v. Indiana Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
  5. Maney v. KagenveamaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McKinney v. RussellDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2017
  2. Ana Flores v. Rod DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  3. Ana Flores v. Rod DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  4. Ana Flores v. Rod DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API