The 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, held
that when a Chapter 13 debtor has no “projected disposable income,” 11 U.S.C. §
1325(b)(1)(B) permits plan confirmation only if the length of the proposed plan
is at least equal to the applicable commitment period under § 1325(b)(4). The court overruled
the holding of Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868 (9th
Cir. 2008), that § 1325(b)(1)(B) does not impose a minimum duration for a
Chapter 13 plan if the debtor has no projected income.
The Court also reaffirmed that 1325(b)(1)(B) acts as a temporal, as distinct from a monetary, requirement that defines a plan's duration.
In re Flores
No comments:
Post a Comment