Legal Opinion
In Re Mathis
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided May 4, 2007No. 19-02408PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CAROL A. DOYLE, Bankruptcy Judge.
The debtors, Samuel and Denise Mathis, seek confirmation of their chapter 13 plan, which requires plan payments for three years. The chapter 13 trustee, Marilyn O. Marshall (“trustee”), objects to confirmation because the debtors* income is “over-the-median” for their state but their proposed plan will not last for the five-year commitment period that she argues is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). The debtors contend that they do not need to pay for five years because § 1325(b)(1)(B) only requires them to pay unsecured creditors…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- TRW Inc. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- In Re AlexanderUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2006
- In Re SlusherUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · 2007
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Baud v. CarrollCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- In Re WilliamsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 2008
- In Re MusselmanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2007
- Danielson v. Flores (In Re Flores)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- In Re MeadowsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 2009
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.