23 Jan California Court: $6,060 Monthly Mortgage Payment Not an Abuse of Chapter 7
In In re Johnson, 2008 WL 5265740 (Bky.S.D.Cal. Dec. 8, 2008), a California bankruptcy court ruled that a debtor with a $6,060 monthly mortgage payment was not to be denied a bankruptcy discharge based solely upon the size of the mortgage payment. The court turned aside a challenge under section 707(b) which claimed that the $6,060 payment was unreasonably high, and claimed that the debtor could rent a more modest residence which would enable him to fund a chapter 13 repayment plan.
The court noted that the debtor had suffered a $60,000 cut in pay prior to filing chapter 7 bankruptcy. The debtor’s home was valued at $900,000 while the mortgage balance was about $1,100,000. Partly due the $6,060 monthly payment on this mortgage, the debtor “passed” the means test, and the presumption of abuse contained in section 707(b)(2) did not arise. However, the U.S. Trustee argued that under the “totality of the circumstances” test contained in section 707(b)(3), the debtor’s chapter 7 filing constituted an abuse, due to the unreasonably high $6,060 monthly mortgage payment.
The court observed that Congress allowed a bankruptcy debtor an expense on the means test equal to the amount of the debtor’s monthly mortgage payment, with no limitation on the amount of the monthly payment. It would be illogical for section 707(b)(2)’s means test to allow a mortgage payment regardless of the size of the payment, only to have the same mortgage payment disallowed by section 707(b)(3)’s totality of the circumstances test. Furthermore, if the debtor were forced to convert to chapter 13, the mortgage payment would once again be allowed by the means test contained in chapter 13. Creditors would not benefit from a conversion to chapter 13 if the mortgage payment were to be allowed in chapter 13 anyways.
The court concluded that a monthly mortgage payment allowed as an expense by the chapter 7 means test could not form the basis for dismissal under either section 707(b)(2) or (3).
Latest posts by Craig W. Andresen, Esq. (see all)
- Judicial Estoppel: Medical Malpractice Claim Survives Omission From Bankruptcy Schedule A/B - January 27, 2019
- Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1: An Unlikely New Weapon Against Debtors - January 9, 2017
- Court Says Chapter 7 Debtor May Not Have Two Cases Pending at Same Time - December 12, 2016
- Unsettled Question: Another Court Rules That Bankruptcy Client Worksheets Are Privileged - February 6, 2016
- Chapter 13 Debtor’s Lawsuit Tossed Out for Failure to List It in Bankruptcy Documents - January 31, 2016