Gerald Todd Upton

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In re 	: 	Case No. 06-56225
Gerald Todd Upton
Robin Michelle Upton 	: 	Chapter 13
Debtor. 	: 	Judge C. Kathryn Preston
ORDER OVERRULING, IN PART, OBJECTION TO
CONFIRMATION OF PLAN FILED BY CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
This cause came on for hearing on February 8, 2007, to consider confirmation of
the Second Amended Chapter l3 Plan (Doc. 19) filed by Gerald and Robin Upton
(“Debtors”), the Objection to confirmation (Doc. 15) filed on behalf of the Chapter 13
Trustee (“Trustee”), and the Brief in Support of Confirmation (Doc. 17) filed on behalf of
the Debtors. Present at the hearing were counsel for the Debtors, Donald R. Jillisky, the
Chapter l3 Trustee, Frank M. Pees, and his counsel John W. Kennedy.
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 14, 2007
____________________________________________________________
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 15

1 According to the United States Trustee Program’s website, the median income for a family of the same
size as the Debtors’ family is $73,034.00 pursuant to the Census Bureau statistics for Median Family
Income by Family Size applicable to cases filed between October 1, 2006 and January 31, 2007.
2
The Trustee objected to confirmation of the Debtors’ proposed chapter 13 plan on
the bases that the Debtors’ plan is not proposed in good faith pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
1325(a)(3) and does not satisfy the disposable income test pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
1325(b) because the Debtors have failed to commit all of their excess income to the plan
More specifically, the Trustee objects to Debtors’ exclusion of income received from
Social Security (“SSI”) for determining their projected disposable income.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and the
general order of reference entered in this District. This matter is a core proceeding
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Debtors filed a voluntary Petition for Relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy
Code on October 30, 2006. 	In accordance with Interim Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b), the
Debtors filed their statement of current monthly income as evidenced by their Official
Form 22C (“Form 22”). 	The Debtors’ household consists of five persons, and the
Debtors have a household income that is above the median income for a household of the
same size in the State of Ohio.1 The Debtors’ Form 22 indicates the Debtors have a
current monthly income of $7,799.87, which amounts to $99,598.44 when annualized.
The Debtors’ Chapter 13 Plan proposes to pay unsecured creditors a dividend of 10%,
and the monthly plan payments are $2,150 for the duration of the plan. According to the
Trustee, the unsecured creditors in this case are entitled to receive no less than 2%
pursuant to the best interest test, and the projected length of the plan as proposed by
Debtors is 57 months. 	See, Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation, at 4.
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 15

3
According to the information contained in the Schedules filed by the Debtors in
this case, Robin Upton is gainfully employed and Gerald Upton is retired and receives
SSI in the amount of $1,013 per month in addition to his retirement income. Calculation
of the Debtors’ current monthly income in Form 22 does not include any of the SSI
received by Gerald Upton. After consideration of the allowable expenses and deductions,
Debtors’ Form 22 indicates their monthly disposable income is $168.90.
In contrast, Schedule I filed by the Debtors, which itemizes all sources of income
received by them, does include the SSI and indicates their monthly combined income
after payroll deductions is $7,092.74. 	Schedule J, which itemizes current expenditures,
indicates the Debtors’ monthly current expenses total $4,402.76. This results in monthly
net income of` $2,689.98. 	Debtors’ proposed monthly plan payment in the amount of
$2,150 is approximately $539 less than the monthly net income indicated on Schedule J.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Trustee objects to the Debtors’ plan on the bases that it does not satisfy the
good faith and the disposable income tests of 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(3) and §1325(b)
respectively.
I. 	Projected Disposable Income under 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)
The Trustee argues that the Debtors have failed to commit all of their projected
disposable income reflected on their Schedule J: Schedule J indicates the Debtors have
net monthly income in the amount of $2,698, and the monthly plan payment proposed by
Debtors is only $2,150. The Trustee acknowledges and agrees that SSI is not used in the
computation of “current monthly income” (“CMI”) under § 101(10A). Nonetheless, the
Trustee asserts that SSI can and should be considered in determining “projected
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 15

4
disposable income.” 	The Trustee believes a mechanical or strict application of the
information contained in Form 22 can lead to absurd results because the figures in Form
22 can be artificially high or low; therefore, Form 22 should be reviewed first when
analyzing a debtor’s circumstances, 	and if there are changed or special or unique
circumstances with respect to the debtor’s income and expenses, then Schedules I and J
should be considered to determine “projected disposable income. ”
In contrast, the Debtors argue that the statutory language of 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)
mandates a strict application of Form 22 in determining “projected disposable income”
for above-median income debtors. More specifically, Debtors argue that the net monthly
income evidenced on Debtors’ Schedule J should not be used in analyzing whether the
Debtors have committed all of their projected disposable income because it includes SSI
that is otherwise not included in the calculation of CMI and “disposable income.”
Debtors essentially argue that SSI cannot be considered in determining “projected
disposable income” because SSI can never be considered part of “disposable income.”
II. 	Good Faith under 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(3)
The Trustee argues, in addition and in the alternative, that Debtors’ plan has not
been proposed in good faith because they propose to commit only a portion of the SSI
and not substantially all of it to pay their creditors. Debtors argue that as a matter of law
their plan is proposed in good faith by their compliance with the policy decision made by
Congress that SSI is not available to pay unsecured creditors.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. 	11 U.S.C. § 1325(b): PROJECTED DISPOSABLE INCOME
11 U.S.C. §1325(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 15

2 Prior to the BAPCPA amendments, § 1325(b)(2) defined “disposable income” as “income which is
received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended for the maintenance or
support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2) (2005).
5
(b)(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to
the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan
unless, as of the effective date of the plan –
(A) the value of the property to be distributed under the plan on
account of such claim is not less than the amount of such claim; or
(B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable
income 	to 	be 	received 	in 	the 	applicable 	commitment 	period
beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan
will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the
plan.
11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1)(B)(emphasis added). The amendments enacted by the Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) changed the
definition of “disposable income” for cases filed on or after October 17, 2005.2
“Disposable income” is now defined in pertinent part as:
[C]urrent monthly income received by the debtor (other than child support
payment, foster care payments, or disability payments for a dependent
child made in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law to the extent
reasonably 	necessary 	to 	be 	expended 	for 	such 	child) 	less 	amounts
reasonably necessary to be expended –
(A)(I) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a
dependent of the debtor . . . [.]
11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(2). 	The term “disposable income” specifically incorporates the
term “current monthly income” which is also defined in the Bankruptcy Code as
amended by BAPCPA. Current monthly income (“CMI”) is defined, in part, as:
the average monthly income from all sources that the debtor receives . . .
without regard to whether such income is taxable income, derived during
the 6-month period [prior to the bankruptcy case being filed] and includes
any amount paid by any entity other than the debtor . . . on a regular basis
for the household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s dependents . . .
but excludes benefits received under the Social Security Act . . . .
11 U.S.C. § 101(10A). 	Once a debtor’s CMI has been determined, the next step in
determining disposable income is to reduce the CMI by the amount of the family’s
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 15

3 Section 707(b) includes additional conditions that may affect a debtor’s allowable expenses, however,
none of those conditions are at issue in this case.
6
reasonably necessary expenses. 	What constitutes reasonable and necessary expenses
differs depending upon whether the debtor is above or below the median income for a
household of the same size. See 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(3).
If a debtor’s current monthly income is below the median income for a household
of the same size, the reasonable and necessary expenses are determined by what is listed
on Schedule J. If, however, a debtor has current monthly income that is greater than the
median income for a household of the same size in the state in which the debtor resides,
§ 1325(b)(3) dictates that the debtor’s reasonably necessary expenses are calculated
pursuant to Section 707(b)(2) (which has generally become known as the “means test”).
Section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) provides in pertinent part as follows:
The debtor’s monthly expenses shall be the debtor’s applicable monthly
expense amounts specified under the National Standards and Local Standards,
and the debtor’s actual expenses for the categories specified as Other
Necessary Expenses issued by the Internal Revenue Service for the area in
which the debtor resides . . . .
Simply stated, the reasonable and necessary expenses used in determining an above-
median income debtor’s disposable income is a combination of figures for certain
categories, such as food, clothing, etc., issued by the Internal Revenue Service for the
area in which the debtor resides and the debtor’s actual expenses for certain other items,
such as taxes, health care, child care, etc. 3
In the instant case, while the Debtors’ Form 22 reflects monthly disposable
income of $168.90, the Debtors’ Schedule J shows a net monthly income of $2,698 due
in part to inclusion of the Debtors’ SSI. The question is whether the Court should resort
to Form 22 or Schedule J in determining “projected disposable income.” 	The Debtors
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 15

4
Applicable commitment period, which is not at issue in this case, is the length of time a debtor is required to
pay the Trustee funds for distribution through a chapter 13 plan: thirty-six months for a below-median income
debtor and sixty months for an above-median income debtor.
7
insist that the Court is limited to analysis of Form 22 when determining “disposable
income,” and thus “projected disposable income.” Either alternative is problematic.
This Court agrees with the Trustee that reference to Schedules I and J is the
appropriate method for analyzing and computing “projected disposable income” under 11
U.S.C. §1325(b)(1)(B). 	However, it is limited by the directive that certain income is
specifically excluded from the calculation of “current monthly income.” 11 U.S.C. § 101
(10A).
Form 22 evidences a debtor’s current monthly income, the calculation of the
applicable commitment period, and the amount of the debtor’s disposable income.4 The
calculation of disposable income provided in Form 22 is based upon debtor’s historical
income (i.e., income received six months prior to filing bankruptcy). 	Furthermore, the
expenses for an above-median income debtor are partly based upon figures issued by the
Internal Revenue Service and very well may not reflect a debtor’s actual circumstances.
The fact that the information contained in Form 22 is not always an accurate reflection of
a debtor’s current circumstances can lead to anomalous, or even absurd results if it is the
only information used in determining a debtor’s “projected disposable income.” 	The
Fuller court noted some of these difficulties in determining whether to use the income
figure stated in Form 22 or Schedule I:
If the purpose of the § 1325(b)(1)(B) requirement that a debtor commit all of
her ‘projected disposable income’ to a plan is to make sure that the debtor is
paying as much as possible each month over the life of the plan to the people
to whom she is indebted, . . . it makes little sense to freeze the calculation of
the debtor’s income at a particular – possibly arbitrary – point in time and set
that number in stone. It makes even less sense that the point in time at which
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 15

8
the calculation is frozen is the time before the debtor even began making
payments on the plan. 	Rather, it appears logical that on the day the debtor
proposes a plan for repaying her creditors – theoretically, the date she files the
petition for relief—the debtor’s actual income as of that date should provide
an appropriate starting point for determining how much she can commit to the
plan.
The amount of income on [Form 22] is not—for either below-median or
above-median debtors—necessarily the debtor’s income at the moment she
proposes her plan. It can be—if the debtor made exactly $2,500 per month for
the six months before the month she filed, and makes $2,500 per month on the
date she files, the income number on her [Form 22] and the income number
on her Schedule I will be the same. If, on the other hand, she loses her job a
month before filing, the income on her [Form 22] will be much higher than
her income at the time of filing, giving a false impression that she has more
income available to devote to the plan than she actually does. The opposite is
true for the debtor who obtains a lucrative job a month before filing—his
income on [Form 22] will be much lower, giving the impression that he has
less to contribute to the plan [than] he actually does.
In re Fuller, 346 B.R. 472, 483 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 2006).
Similar difficulties can arise when analyzing a debtor’s expenses when the debtor
is above-median income. The expenses reflected in Form 22 for a debtor that has above-
median income may not accurately reflect the debtor’s actual expenses because the
expenses for an above-median income debtor are determined by the means test built into
Form 22. 	The means test applies expense amounts for certain categories based upon
figures issued by the Internal Revenue Service and are not based on the actual needs of
the debtor. Arguably, a debtor’s actual expenses as listed on Schedule J can possibly be
greater than or less than those expenses allowed by the means test. Similarly, a debtor’s
financial picture may be materially affected by the goals they seek to achieve through the
relief provided by the Bankruptcy Code. 	For example, in calculation of disposable
income, Form 22 provides for insertion by a debtor of contractual payments on secured
debt, regardless of the debtor’s intention with respect to the encumbered asset, whereas a
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 15

9
chapter 13 debtor would not include on Schedule J such an obligation if the debtor
intends to surrender the asset, or propose modification of the obligation to the secured
creditor in a chapter 13 plan. In the case where the debtor’s actual expenses are less than
those allowed under the Form 22 means test, her Schedule J may reflect that she has
additional income available to pay into the plan that Form 22 does not; thus, reliance on
Form 22 for determination of the debtor’s payments under those circumstances would
create a windfall for the debtor at the expense of unsecured creditors. On the other hand,
if the expenses as indicated on Form 22 are less than the debtor’s actual expenses, the
debtor may be precluded from proposing a feasible plan if Form 22 is the only
information relied upon in determining “projected disposable income.” Neither of these
results are consistent with the underlying policies that a debtor seeking chapter 13 relief
under the Bankruptcy Code pay all that she can afford to her creditors and that the honest
debtor be afforded a “fresh start.” Clearly, strict application of and sole reliance upon the
information in Form 22 in analyzing how much “projected disposable income” must be
committed to a plan can be inconsistent with the Code.
Furthermore, the statutory language of 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1) mandates the use of
Schedules I and J in determining “projected disposable income.” 	Section 1325(b)(1)
clearly indicates that the Court is supposed to make a determination of “projected
disposable income” as of the effective date of the plan. 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1) states in
pertinent part as follows:
(b)(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to
the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan
unless, as of the effective date of the plan –
. . .
(B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable
income 	to 	be 	received 	in 	the 	applicable 	commitment 	period
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 15

5 The Debtors emphasize that they have not experienced a change in circumstances that warrants resorting
to Schedule J for determination of projected disposable income, and again insist that the Court look only to
Form 22. However, the statute does not limit its application of “projected disposable income” in situations
involving a change in the debtor’s circumstances, but requires the Court’s determination and application of
that in every chapter 13 case. The Court’s holding does not render Form 22 meaningless, as it is still used
to determine current monthly income and applicable commitment period. If the Court held otherwise,
however, Schedules I and J would be rendered meaningless in cases involving above-median income
debtors, as those Schedules would have no purpose. This would be inconsistent with the mandate of
Section 521 that the debtors file schedules of current income and current expenses.
6 Excluding SSI from this analysis, however, does not necessarily preclude its consideration in determining
whether a plan is feasible pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6). Thus, if a debtor’s Schedules I and J indicate
the net monthly income after excluding any SSI is less than the proposed plan payment, the SSI may still be
considered by the Court under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6) to overcome the appearance that the plan is not
feasible.
10
beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan
will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the
plan.
11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1) (emphasis added). 	The language “as of the effective date of the
plan” specifically directs the timing of the court’s inquiry. Form 22, as discussed earlier,
contains historical data and reflects circumstances that occurred prior to the date of filing.
Schedules I and J, however, reflect the debtor’s circumstances as of the petition date with
accommodation for the terms of the debtor’s proposed plan. If a debtor has any change
in income or expenses prior to confirmation, she is under a duty to amend her Schedules I
and J accordingly. 	Thus, Schedules I and J as filed on the petition date, subject to any
amendments thereafter, reflect the debtor’s circumstances as of the effective date of the
plan. 	Therefore, the Trustee may consider Schedules I and J in determining “projected
disposable income” under 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1)(B) . 5
The Debtors, however, are also correct in asserting that the SSI as listed on their
Schedule I should not be considered in determining whether a debtor has contributed all
of 	her 	“projected 	disposable 	income” 	to 	fund 	the 	plan 	pursuant 	to 	11 	U.S.C.
§1325(b)(1)(B). 6 As discussed earlier, “current monthly income,” as defined by the
Code, specifically excludes any benefits received under the Social Security Act from its
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 15

11
computation. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A). “[S]ocial security income is not required to be
included in the analysis of whether [the debtor] is contributing all of her ‘projected
disposable income’ to her plan under §1325(b)(1)(B).” 	In re Ward, __ B.R. __, 2007
Bankr. LEXIS 58, at *9, 2007 WL 63580, at *3 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2007); see also In re
Schanuth, 342 B.R. 601, 605 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2006) (“In light of 11 U.S.C. §
101(10A)’s explicit exclusion of social security benefits from the calculation of CMI, . . .
the Court cannot compel the Debtors to include those benefits in their calculation of
disposable income.”). This Court agrees that consideration of benefits received under the
Social Security Act is inappropriate for determining “projected disposable income.”
Therefore, in this case, Debtors’ monthly SSI in the amount of $1,013 shall not be
included in determining whether they are contributing all of their “projected disposable
income” under §1325(b)(1)(B). While this “hybrid” approach to analysis of the Debtors’
disposable income is a bit cumbersome, it presents the only conclusion this Court can
derive given the language of the statute, the practicalities of its application, and the intent
behind Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Satisfying the disposable income test required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), however, does
not end the Court’s inquiry in considering confirmation of a plan. 	Debtors are still
required to propose a plan in good faith pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3).
II. 	11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3): GOOD FAITH
The amendments wrought by BAPCPA did not change the requirement that a
chapter 13 plan be proposed in good faith. 	See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). 	In the Sixth
Circuit, one factor to consider in determining good faith is the amount of the proposed
payments and the amount of the debtor’s surplus. In re Caldwell, 895 F.2d 1123, 1126-
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 15

12
27 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030, 1032 (6th Cir. 1988)).
The good faith test enunciated by the Caldwell court consists of twelve factors:
(1) the amount of the proposed payments and the amount of the debtor’s
surplus;
(2) the debtor’s employment history, ability to earn and likelihood of
future increase in income;
(3) the probable or expected duration of the plan;
(4) the accuracy of the plan’s statements of the debts, expenses and
percentage repayment of unsecured debt and whether any inaccuracies are
an attempt to mislead the court;
(5) the extent of preferential treatment between classes of creditors;
(6) the extent to which secured claims are modified;
(7) the type of debt sought to be discharged and whether any such debt is
nondischargeable in Chapter 7;
(8) the existence of special circumstances such as inordinate medical
expenses;
(9) the frequency with which the debtor has sought relief under the
Bankruptcy Reform Act;
(10) the motivation and sincerity of the debtor in seeking Chapter 13
relief;
(11) the burden which the plan’s administration would place upon the
trustee; and,
(12) whether the debtor is attempting to abuse the spirit of the Bankruptcy
Code.
Caldwell, 895 F.2d at 1032.
The bankruptcy court must ultimately determine whether the debtor’s
plan, given his or her individual circumstances, satisfies the purposes
undergirding Chapter 13: a sincerely-intended repayment of pre-petition
debt consistent with the debtor’s available resources. The decision should
be left simply to the bankruptcy court’s common sense and judgment.
Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis (In re Francis), 273 B.R. 87, 92 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002)
(quoting In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030, 1033 (6th Cir. 1988)).
Some courts have opined that the express exclusion of social security income
eliminates the elements of debtor’s income and surplus from the good faith analysis. As
have many other courts, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has specified the debtor’s
income and surplus as factors for consideration in the determination of good faith.
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 12 of 15

7 However, the Court acknowledges that there may be more to the determination of good faith in light of
Congress’ exclusion of certain income from the term “disposable income.” For instance, for those debtors
suffering disabilities or progressive illness, will they require increased medical attention, surgery or
medication in the future for which they need to reserve funds? Will maintaining a home that can
accommodate their needs require additional expenditures in the future?
13
Congress, 	armed 	with 	the 	knowledge 	of 	that 	interpretation, 	did 	not 	amend 	the
requirement of good faith contained in §1325, or the elements to be considered in that
analysis.7 Congress is presumed to know the case law interpreting a statute, and if no
amendment to the statute is crafted, then Congress is presumed to be satisfied with the
effect of the statute as applied by the courts. Cf. Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey
Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 501, 106 S. Ct. 755, 759, 88 L. Ed.2d
859, 866 (1986) (“The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends
for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that
intent specific.”). 	Furthermore, “Congress . . . indicated a clear intent to curb
opportunistic filings and its displeasure with the practice of allowing debtors, who are
able to repay their debts, to avoid their obligations to creditors.” 	In re Edmunds, 350
B.R. 636, 649 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 109-31(1), at 5 (2005)).
According to Schedule J, the Debtors in this case have net monthly income in the
amount of $2,689.98, and their monthly chapter 13 plan payment is only $2,150. 	As a
result, the Debtors have approximately $539 of monthly net income that is not being
committed to the plan, which will allow the Debtors to accumulate approximately
$32,340 in savings, or surplus, over the life of the plan. This fact weighs heavily against
a finding that the Debtors’ plan is proposed in good faith pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
1325(a)(3). 	As observed by the court in In re LaSota, 351 B.R. 56 (Bankr. W.D. N.Y.
2006), neither the projected disposable income test, nor § 1325(a)(3)'s good faith
requirement, either independently or in combination, permit debtors to accumulate
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 13 of 15

14
savings while paying unsecured creditors less than 100%. 	Unless the Debtors can show
justification for reserving such an amount, the Court would find it difficult to approve the
Debtors’ plan as proposed.
The Debtors did not present any evidence regarding good faith at the hearing, but
instead intimated that good faith could be determined as a matter of law. 	This Court
disagrees and will defer its ruling on the Trustee’s objection to confirmation based on his
assertion that the Debtors’ plan has not been proposed in good faith to allow the Debtors
an opportunity to present evidence regarding that issue.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s objection to confirmation for Debtors’
failure to commit all their projected disposable income is hereby OVERRULED. 	The
Court defers ruling on the Trustee’s objection to confirmation based on good faith to
allow Debtors the opportunity to either amend their chapter 13 plan or present evidence
on the good faith criteria, whichever they deem appropriate. 	Accordingly, the Court’s
ruling on confirmation of the Debtors’ plan is also reserved until the good faith issue is
resolved. A hearing to consider confirmation shall be held on April 5, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.
in Courtroom C, Fifth Floor, United States Bankruptcy Court, 170 N. High Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43215.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Gerald T. Upton and Robin M. Upton, 8306 Twp Rd. 166, West Liberty, OH 43357
Donald R. Jillisky, Attorney for Debtor(s) (Electronic Service)
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 14 of 15

Frank M. Pees, Chapter l3 Trustee (Electronic Service)
Office of the U.S. Trustee (Electronic Service)
###
Case 2:06-bk-56225 Doc 31 Filed 03/14/07 Entered 03/15/07 09:41:33 Desc Main
Document Page 15 of 15