In re Whitt

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Huston

    635 B.R. 164 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Because the few cases using the current monthly income approach are relatively recent, it is not surprising that approach does not appear to have been raised or addressed by courts in most of the published decisions on the issue. See, e.g. , In re Whitt , 616 B.R. 323, 327-30 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2020) (discussing the "three distinct approaches" and joining the "majority ... that have held that postpetition retirement contributions are not considered disposable income," with no mention of the current monthly income approach). In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court who permitted a debtor who had historically made TSP contributions, but was suspended from doing so for six months as of the petition date because of a TSP loan, to deduct from his projected disposable income future contributions in the historical amount once the suspension was lifted.

  2. In re Pizzo

    Case Number: 20-01758-hb (Bankr. D.S.C. May. 20, 2021)

    Neither § 1325 nor § 707 explicitly authorizes retirement contributions as an allowable expense in calculating disposable income. In re Whitt, 616 B.R. 323, 326 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2020) (citing Miner v. Johns (In re Miner), 589 B.R. 51, 56 (W.D. La. 2018)). Rather, § 541(b)(7) of the Code set forth the following exceptions to property of the estate:

  3. In re Perkins

    No. 22-20025 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2023)

    Id. Good faith is examined using a totality of the circumstances test. In re Whitt, 616 B.R. 323, 331 (Bankr. S.D.Miss. 2020). This test examines a non-exclusive list of factors to consider: the proposed plan's reasonableness, whether the plan shows an attempt to abuse the spirit of the bankruptcy code, whether the debtor genuinely intends to effectuate the plan, evidence of misrepresentation or manipulation, fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor, whether the plan reflects the debtor's ability to pay, and whether a creditor has objected to the plan. Id.

  4. In re Chatham

    No. 22-13094-SDM (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Mar. 24, 2023)

    In re Whitt, 616 B.R. 323, 331 (Bankr. S.D.Miss. 2020) (citing Stanley, 224 Fed. App'x. at 346)).