Unborn Child Is Not Part Of The Household In Oregon
By Kent Anderson, Oregon Bankruptcy Attorney on Aug 12, 2007 in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, General Bankruptcy Information, Oregon, State Specific Bankruptcy Issues
In a recent decision, Oregon Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn concluded that expectant debtors could not include their unborn child when calculating household size. As a result, mom and dad may still be making payments on their Chapter 13 plan when junior starts pre-school.
Household size is important in bankruptcy to determine whether or not a debtor’s family income exceeds the median income for the state of residence. In the case of a Chapter 13 plan, if the debtor enjoys above median income, the “applicable commitment period” as determined by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4) requires payment for not less than five years before a discharge can be entered.
In deciding that a household can not include an unborn child, Judge Dunn looked to the U. S. Census Bureau for a definition of “household” and the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade, as well as tax court opinions to define the terms “person” and “individual”. Uncertainty regarding the blessed event appeared to tip the scales for Judge Dunn against inclusion of the expected child.
The opinion was limited to determining the duration of the Chapter 13 plan, or “applicable commitment period” in the words of the statute. There was no question before the court as to the debtors’ projected disposable income; although Judge Dunn quipped that the case was “pregnant” with the issue.
If you liked that post, then try these...
Who Is the Chapter 13 Trustee for the New Orleans Bankruptcy Court? by Kevin Gipson, New Orleans Bankruptcy Attorney
Bankruptcy Success Depends on Your Cooperation With Your Lawyer by Jonathan Ginsberg, Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
What's the Difference Between an "Amended Plan" and a "Modified Plan"? by Brett Weiss, Maryland Bankruptcy Attorney
You must be logged in to post a comment.