In re Martin
United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois
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
- Freytag v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Hamilton v. LanningSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Ricky Crawford v. Indiana Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Maney v. KagenveamaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- McKinney v. RussellDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2017
- Ana Flores v. Rod DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Ana Flores v. Rod DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Ana Flores v. Rod DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013