Titus William Linville and Shannon Marie Linville

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: 	Titus William Linville and 	No. 7-09-14121 JA
Shannon Marie Linville,
Debtors.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Motion of the United States Trustee to Dismiss
Case Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(1) Based on the Presumption of Abuse Arising Under 11
U.S.C. §707(b)(2) and the Totality of the Circumstances Under 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(3) (“Motion
to Dismiss”)(Docket No. 16). Debtors’ Objection to UST Motion to Dismiss was filed
December 7, 2009 (“Debtors’ Objection”)(Docket No. 19). The Court held a final hearing on the
Motion to Dismiss on October 5, 2010 and took the matter under advisement.
The United States Trustee (the “Trustee”) seeks dismissal of the Debtors’ Chapter 7 Case
based on the presumption of abuse. In his Motion to Dismiss, the Trustee contends that while
the Debtors’ means test calculation shows monthly disposable income that does not give rise to
the presumption of abuse, the Debtors miscalculated certain allowable deductions on their
Official Form 22A and deducted amounts for their adult children’s college expenses that should
be disallowed. The Trustee asserts that the proper means test calculation results in disposable
income sufficient to create a presumption of abuse in this case; consequently, the Debtors may
only rebut the presumption by demonstrating special circumstances. He contends that the
Debtors have not alleged any special circumstances. Finally, in the alternative, the Trustee
contends that if the Court finds that the presumption of abuse does not arise, or that the Debtors
have successfully rebutted the presumption of abuse, the Court should dismiss the case under 11
U.S.C. §707(b)(3) based on the totality of the circumstances.
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 1 of 13

‐2‐
Upon review of the evidence presented at trial and consideration of the applicable
standards for dismissal under 11 U.S.C.§707(b), the Court finds the Motion to Dismiss should be
granted because the presumption of abuse arises under section 707(b)(2) and the Debtors failed
to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.1 The Court, therefore, will enter an order
granting the Motion and allowing the Debtors to file, within 20 days from the date of entry of the
order, a motion to convert their case to one under Chapter 13. If the Debtors do not timely file a
motion to convert, the Trustee may submit an order dismissing this case.
I. 	FACTS
1. 	The Debtors, Titus William Linville and Shannon Marie Linville, filed their voluntary
petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 11, 2009. The Debtors
reside in Jamestown, New Mexico which is located in McKinley County.
2. 	Mr. Linville is a sheriff in McKinley County. Mrs. Linville is employed as a teacher at
the McKinley County Schools.
3. 	On the petition date, the Debtors’ three children were 17, 18 and 20 years old. At the
present time the Debtors’ children are all attending college at the University of New
Mexico in Albuquerque.
4. 	Debtors filed their Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs on the petition date, and
reflected on their petition that their scheduled debts are primarily consumer debts as
defined by 11 U.S.C.§101(8).
5. 	The Debtors’ schedules reflect secured debts in the amount of $207,302.83; no priority
debt; and unsecured debts in the amount of $110,236.84.
1 Given its decision, the Court will not consider the Trustee’s alternative argument that the Debtors’ case should be
dismissed under section 707(b)(3) applying the totality of the circumstances standard.
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 2 of 13

‐3‐
6. 	The Debtors’ Schedule I discloses combined gross monthly income of $8,457.97 and net
monthly income of $5,688.63.
7. 	The Debtors’ Schedule J discloses total monthly expenses of $5,664.05, leaving net
income over expenses in the amount of $24.58.
8. 	The Debtors’ income exceeds the applicable median family income for a family of five in
the State of New Mexico. 2
9. 	On September 11, 2009, the Debtors also filed their Statement of Current Monthly
Income and Means Test Calculation (Official Form 22A) and indicated that that
presumption of abuse does not arise in their bankruptcy case.
10. Line 13 of the Debtors’ Official Form 22A reflects annualized current monthly income
for purposes of 11 USC §707(b)(7) in the amount of $120,642.12 which exceeds the
applicable median family income for a family of five in New Mexico of $62,909.00.
11. Line 50 of the Debtors’ Official Form 22A reflects monthly disposable income of
$181.93.
12. The Trustee calculated the Debtors’ monthly disposable income based on Current
Monthly Income 3 (“CMI”) and expenses allowable under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2) to be
$1,130.03. See Exhibit T-19, Line 51.
13. The Debtors claim $938.00 per month is allowable under a IRS Local Standards
deduction for mortgage and rent expenses, in addition to their actual monthly home
mortgage payments which total $1,290.35. See Exhibit T-19, Lines 35, 42A and 42B.
2 As of the petition date, the median family income for a family of five in the State of New Mexico was $62,909.00.
See Census Bureau Median Family Income by Family Size.
3 Current monthly income is defined in 11 U.S.C. §101(10A).
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 3 of 13

‐4‐
14. The Debtors claim expenses on Line 35 in the amount of $1,000 per month incurred as
contributions to their children’s college educations as expenses allowable under 11
U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) for the care and support of a member of debtor’s immediate
family who is unable to pay for such expenses. Approximately two-thirds of that amount
is for college expenses of the Debtors’ children who were age 18 or older on the petition
date.
15. The Debtors children can attend UNM’s Gallup campus and live with their parents, and
thereby save the expense of residing in Albuquerque where they each live in separate
apartments. However, UNM’s Gallup campus does not offer majors in the areas in which
the children wish to obtain degrees.
16. In addition to the amount of the allowable deduction to be reflected on Line 35, the
Trustee and the Debtors disagree on the amounts the Debtors should be allowed to deduct
on Lines 20B, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 42B, and 42C, of Debtors’ Official Form 22A
(“Debtors’ Form22A”). The aggregate expense deductions that the Debtors claim on
Lines 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 42B, and 42C are less than the aggregate deductions the Trustee
asserts are allowable for those expenses. See, Exhibit T-19.
17. The Trustee filed a Statement of Presumed Abuse on October 26, 2009.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Section 707(b)(1) provides that, after notice and a hearing, the Court may dismiss a case filed
by an individual whose debts are primarily consumer debts if it finds that granting relief would
be an abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7. See 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(1). The Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) established the means test to
determine whether a presumption of abuse arises in a debtor's bankruptcy case using a debtor's
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 4 of 13

‐5‐
current monthly income and certain allowed deductions. The presumption of abuse arises under
certain prescribed circumstances where the debtor’s current monthly income exceeds the median
family income for the applicable state and family size. See 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(A)(i).4 Debtors
are entitled to claim deductions as set forth in 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(A)(ii),5 which includes
amounts established by the National Standards and Local Standards issued by the Internal
Revenue Service for the debtor’s area any other amounts.
The Debtors are individuals whose debts are primarily consumer debts and whose income
exceeds the applicable median family income for a household of the same size. Therefore they
are subject to the requirements of 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2).6 The Trustee contends that the Debtors
miscalculated deductions for certain allowed expenses and claimed deductions for expenses on
their Official Form 22A Statement of Current Monthly Income and Means Test Calculation
(“Debtor’s Form 22A”) that should be disallowed. The crux of the Trustee’s case concerns two
deductions that the Trustee asserts the Debtors cannot claim: (1) the mortgage/rent expense
reported in Part V, Subpart A, Line 20B of Debtor’s Form 22A; and (2) support payments for
their children attending college claimed in Part V, Subpart B, Line 35 of Debtor’s Form 22A.
A. DEBTORS’ DEDUCTIONS
The Trustee and the Debtors disagree on the amounts the Debtors should be allowed to
deduct as reported on Lines 20B, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 42B, and 42C of Debtors’ Form22A.
But because the question of presumed abuse can be resolved by considering only the
4 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(A)(i) provides that:
“In considering under paragraph (1) whether the granting of relief would be an abuse of provisions of this
chapter, the court shall presume abuse exists if the debtor's current monthly income reduced by the amounts
determined under clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv), and multiplied by 60 is not less than the lesser of-
(I) 25 percent of the debtor's nonpriority unsecured claims in the case, or $6,000, whichever is greater; or
(II) $10,000.”
5 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iv) sets forth the allowable expenses that are deducted from debtor’s current monthly
income to determine whether the presumption of abuse arises.
6 See 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(7)(excluding from 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2) debtors whose family income is equal or less than
the applicable median family income).
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 5 of 13

‐6‐
mortgage/rent expense reported on Line 20B and the expense associated with the Debtor’s
support of their children at college reported on Line 35, the Court need not address the remaining
disputed deductions contained on Lines 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 42B, and 42C of Debtors’ Form 22A.
Local Standards: Housing and Utilities; Mortgage/Rent Expense
Line 20B of Official Form 22A provides for insertion of an expense deduction for mortgage
or rent expenses allowed by the Internal Revenue Service Local Standards to the extent the
standard allowable expense exceeds the amount to be inserted on Line 42.7 The Debtors claimed
a Local Standards expense deduction for mortgage or rent expense in the amount of $938.00 on
Line 20B of Debtors’ Form 22A 8 without deducting the amount the Debtor’s inserted on Line 42
as instructed by Form 22A.9
The Trustee asserts that the $938.00 deduction for mortgage or rent expense must be deleted
from Line 20B because Debtors’ Form 22A at Line 42 reflects that their actual home monthly
mortgage payment of $1,290.35 is greater than the IRS Local Standards deduction for housing
and rent. This adjustment comports with the requirements under 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(A) for
calculating the allowed deduction. When a debtor’s actual expense for home mortgage payments
exceeds the IRS Local Standards deduction for mortgage or rent expense, the debtor may not
7 Line 42 of Official Form B22A allows debtors to deduct “future payments on secured claims.”
8 This figure was the IRS standard in effect on the petition date for housing and utilities in McKinley County, New
Mexico for a household size of 5.
9 Line 20B requires debtors to enter the Local Standards allowable expense for housing and utilities, and then
subtract their actual average monthly payments and secured indebtedness. If the difference is a negative number,
which it is in this case, the form instructs that the allowable expenses on Line 22A should be designated as zero.
Here, the amount the Debtors’ claimed on Line 20B is $938.00 and the Debtors inserted $1,290.35 on Line 42.
Because the difference between $938.00 and $1,290.35 is less than zero, the form instructs that no deduction should
be taken on Line 20B.
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 6 of 13

‐7‐
take both deductions. 10 To do so would be double dipping because it would result in taking two
deductions for the same expense.
Here, because the Debtors’ actual mortgage expense exceeds the standardized deduction, the
Debtors were entitled only to deduct their actual home mortgage payments in the amount of
$1,290.35 on Line 42 and not also the Local Standards deduction for mortgage or rent expense
on Line 20B. Consequently, the Debtors’ expenses for purposes of calculating monthly
disposable income under 11 U.S.C § 707(b)(2) are reduced by $938.00, the amount
inappropriately claimed on Line 20B.
Continued Contributions to the Care of Household or Family Members
On Line 35 of Debtor’s Form 22A, Debtors claim a monthly expense deduction of $1,000.00
for contributions to the education of their children who attend college at the University of New
Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 11 The Trustee asserts that expenses incurred for the
Debtors’ children to aid in their pursuit of post-secondary education are not allowable under 11
U.S.C § 707(b)(2). The Trustee contends that the expenses reported on Line 35 of Form 22A are
limited to expenses related to elderly, chronically ill, or disabled members of a debtor’s
household or immediate family, and therefore the expense deduction taken for the educational
expenses of the Debtor’s adult children should be disallowed.
Line 35 of Form 22A instructs debtors to “[e]nter the actual monthly expenses that you
will continue to pay for the reasonable and necessary care and support of an elderly, chronically
ill, or disabled member of your household or member of your immediate family who is unable to
10 See In re Jones, 2008 WL 2676841,*3 (Bankr.E.D.Cal. 2008)(debtors not allowed to claim both the local
standard and actual mortgage payments where actual mortgage payments exceed local standard.); In re Budig, 387
B.R. 12, 14 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 2008)(same).
11 Two of these children were over the age of 18 as of the petition date.
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 7 of 13

‐8‐
pay for such expenses.” 	This instruction is based on 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II), which
provides:
[t]he debtor’s monthly expenses may include, if applicable, the continuation of actual
expenses paid by the debtor that are reasonable and necessary for care and support of an
elderly, chronically ill, or disabled household member or member of the debtor’s
immediate family…and who is unable to pay for such reasonable and necessary
expenses.
11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II).
The Debtors argue that the statute includes expenses for the care and support of a
member of a debtor’s immediate family who is unable to pay for such expenses. Based on the
Debtors’ reading of this provision, the family member in question need not be elderly,
chronically ill or disabled, just unable to pay for his or her own care and support. The Court
disagrees. 	The Debtors’ interpretation is contrary to the language of the statute.
The plain meaning of the language of 11 U.S.C.§ 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) is that for an
expense to be allowable under that provision, (i) the expense must be the continuation of actual
expenses paid by the debtor; (ii) the expense must be reasonable and necessary for care and
support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled person; (iii) such person must be a member of
the debtor’s household or a member of the debtor’s immediate family; and (iv) such person must
be unable to pay for such reasonable and necessary expenses.12 And, while this is an issue of
first impression in New Mexico, several other courts that have analyzed the language in 11
U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) have reached the same conclusion.13
12 See In re Hicks, 370 B.R. 919 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.2007)(holding that “the elements of Section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II)
are as follows: the expenses must be a continuation of actual expenses paid by the Debtor; and (i) the expenses must
be reasonable and necessary for care and support of any elderly, chronically ill, or disabled (a) household member
who is unable to pay for such expenses, or (b) member of the Debtor’s immediate family (as defined by the statute)
who is unable to pay for such expenses.”).
13 See, e.g., In re Williams, 424 B.R. 207 (Bankr. W.D.Va. 2010) (following Hicks); In re Harris, 415 B.R. 756,
761(Bankr.E.D.CA. 2009)(agreeing with the analysis set forth in In re Hicks and disallowing claimed deduction for
adult daughter attending college and living away from home). See also, In re Walker, 383 B.R 830, 838 (Bankr.
N.D.GA., 2008)(holding that debtor not entitled to deduct expenses of college-age son).
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 8 of 13

‐9‐
Here, the contributions to college expenses of the Debtors’ adult children do not qualify
as allowable expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) because the Debtors’ children are
not elderly and there is no evidence before the Court to support a finding that any of the children
are chronically ill or disabled. They are simply college students who are unable to pay all of
their expenses.
Although Debtors did not expressly assert that Jenifer Linville’s expenses should be
allowed because of a disability, Shannon Linville testified that their eldest daughter has a
learning disability and as a result needs to attend UNM’s Albuquerque campus so she may obtain
specialized help. Shannon Linville further testified that Jenifer originally attended UNM’s
Gallup campus, which permits her to live at home with her parents, but could not receive the
specialized help she needs because of her disability. 	Shannon Linville testified that although
Jenifer had been tested in high school for her learning disability, she needed to be but had not
been retested in connection with attending a college. Jenifer testified that she is better off at
UNM’s Albuquerque campus because she has received the specialized help she needed. Jenifer
took only one math class at the Gallup campus and did not receive the help she needed.
The Trustee introduced the testimony of Joan Green, Acting Director of Student Services
for the UNM Gallup campus. Ms. Green testified that UNM provides accommodations for
students with disabilities who attend college at the Gallup campus, including learning
disabilities, based on documentation of the disability but that these services cannot be provided
without documentation. The Debtors presented no evidence that Jenifer provided or attempted to
provide to UNM any documentation of a learning disability while she attended the Gallup
campus.
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 9 of 13

‐10‐
Even if reasonable and necessary expenses associated with a learning disability of an
adult child could qualify as appropriate deductions under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II), the
evidence does not support a finding that the claimed expenses are reasonable and necessary
expenses attributable to Jenifer’s learning disability. The Debtors provided no documentation to
establish that any extra costs they pay for Jenifer to attend college at UNM’s Albuquerque
campus rather than that Gallup campus relate directly to needed specialized accommodations for
her learning disability not reasonably available to Jenifer at the Gallup campus. The Court,
therefore, finds that the expenses incurred by the Debtors for college expenses of their daughter
Jenifer are not an allowable as an expense deduction under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II).
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Debtors cannot include the claimed
expense for care or support of an immediate family member on Line 20B of Debtor’s Form 22A.
Nor can the Debtors include the claimed expense for mortgage/rent reported on Line 35 of
Debtors’ Form 22A. Consequently, the Debtors fail the means test and the presumption of abuse
arises.
B. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Once the presumption of abuse arises, if not rebutted, the presumption may result in the
dismissal of the debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, or, with the debtor’s consent,
conversion of the case to a case under Chapter 11 or Chapter 13. To rebut the presumption the
Debtors must present evidence of special circumstances under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(B). Section
707(b)(2)(B)(i) requires a debtor to demonstrate the following: (1) special circumstances that
justify an additional expense or income adjustment; and (2) that there is not a reasonable
alternative for the expense or income adjustment.14 Special circumstances is a fact-specific
14 See, In re Patterson, 392 B.R. 497, 504 (Bankr. S.D.Fl. 2008)(explaining the substantive requirements that debtor
(1) demonstrate special circumstances justifying additional expense or income adjustment and (2) demonstrate that
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 10 of 13

‐11‐
consideration made on a case by case basis.15 Courts are given broad discretion in making the
determination of whether special circumstances exist. Section 707(b)(2)(B)(i) provides a non-
exclusive list of examples of what Congress found to be special circumstances, i.e. a medical
condition and a call or order to active military service.16 The statutory provision requires that the
debtor itemize each additional expense or adjustment of income, and provide documentation and
a detailed explanation demonstrating that the expense or adjustment is reasonable and
necessary.17
Debtors urge that special circumstances exist to rebut the presumption of abuse. The
Debtors assert that their children’s attendance at college and the associated additional expenses
are a special circumstance, arguing that their children will be unable to complete their college
educations and receive their desired degrees unless they attend UNM’s Albuquerque campus.
They further assert that their children will be unable to attend UNM’s Albuquerque campus
without financial help from the Debtors for some of their living expenses.18 The Debtors
presented evidence of the reasonable of the college expenses incurred, and that UNM does not
offer degrees at the Gallup campus in the subjects in which their children wish to major.
there is no reasonable alternative to making the additional expense or income adjustment); In re Armstrong, 2007
WL 1544591, at *2 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio, 2007)(finding special circumstance “is one that is out of the ordinary for an
average family and leaves the debtor with no reasonable alternative but to incur the expense”); In re Knight, 370
B.R. 429, 437-438 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2007)(where the Court explains that special circumstance “is one that if the
debtor is not permitted to adjust her income or expenses accordingly, results in a demonstrable economic unfairness
prejudicial to the debtor.”)
15 In re Fonash, 401 B.R. 143, 147(Bankr.M.D. Pa.2008)(citing In re Champagne, 389 B.R. 191, 200
(Bankr.D.Kan.2008); In re Zahringer, 2008 WL 2245864, *3 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.); In re Turner, 376 B.R. 370, 378
(Bankr.D.N.H.2007); In re Knight, 370 B.R. 429, 437 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2007).
16 See In re Williams, 424 B.R. 207, 216 (Bankr.W.D.Va. 2010)(“Once the presumption of abuse is found, §
707(b)(2)(B) limits a debtor's ability to rebut that presumption to ‘demonstrating special circumstances’ that ‘justify
additional expenses or adjustments of currently monthly income.’”)
17 See Williams, 424 B.R. at 216.( “In order to establish ‘special circumstances’ a debtor must produce
documentation for and an explanation of the special circumstances such that the Court, by a preponderance of the
evidence, could find that the expense or adjustment to income is justified.”)
18 On the petition date, Debtors’ youngest child, Jessica Linville, was a minor. Expenses attributable to Jessica for
her support during her minority may be allowable as an expense necessary to the care of a dependent, but the Court
need not address those expenses because they are immaterial to the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 11 of 13

‐12‐
The majority of courts considering this issue hold that debtors cannot pay for college-related
expenses for adult children.19 Specifically, courts find that “an adult child attending college is
not a special circumstance that is out of the ordinary for an average family which leaves the
Debtors with no reasonable alternative but to incur the expense.”20 “Courts generally agree that
educational expenses for adult children are discretionary; and are not expenses that should be
foisted upon a debtor’s pre-petition creditors.”21
While the Court is sympathetic to the Debtors desire to provide their children
financial assistance to enable them to attend college, the Debtors cannot do so at the
expense of their creditors. Under the facts of this case, payment of approximately
$726.00 per month for the college expenses of the Debtors’ adult children is not a special
circumstance that justified the additional expense. Consequently, the Court finds that the
Debtors have failed to produce evidence of special circumstances sufficient to rebut the
presumption of abuse.
CONCLUSION
Because the presumption of abuse arises and has not been rebutted, the Court will
enter an order granting the Motion and allowing the Debtors to file, within 20 days from
the date of entry of the order, a motion to convert their case to one under Chapter 13. If
Debtors do not timely file a motion to convert, the Trustee may submit an order
dismissing this case.
19 In re Baker, 400 B.R.594, 599 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio, 2009); Walker, 383 B.R. at 833; In re Ziegler, 2009 WL
5943248,*3 (Bankr.D.Colo. 2009); In re Pfahler, 2007 WL 2156401 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2007).
20See, Patterson, 392 B.R. at 506 (determining that an adult child’s college expenses are not a special circumstance)
21 Id. at 506(citing In re Staub, 256 B.R. 567, 571 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.2000). See also, In re Richmond, 144 B.R. 539,
542 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1992) (“debtors' unsecured creditors should [not] be required to contribute to the voluntary
support of family members who are not dependents of the debtors”); In re Pfahler, 2007 WL 2156401
(Bankr.N.D.Ohio, 2007)(finding debtor cannot pay expenses of his adult son away at college “at the expense of his
unsecured creditors”); In re Mattingly, 2007 WL 1830805 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa, 2007)(finding debtors could not help
pay for child’s college expenses at the expense of their creditors.”)
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 12 of 13

‐13‐
This Memorandum Opinion shall constitute the Court=s findings of fact and
conclusions of law under Rule 7052, Fed.R.Bankr.P.
_________________________________
ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Entered on Docket Date: February 15, 2011
Copies to:
Gary B Ottinger
PO Box 1782
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1782
Attorney for Debtors.
Leonard K Martinez-Metzgar
Officer of the United States Trustee
PO Box 608
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0608
Case 09-14121-j13 Doc 34 Filed 02/15/11 Entered 02/15/11 16:26:18 Page 13 of 13