In re Flores (9th Cir. 8/31/2012)— F.3d —-, 2012 WL 3803936
In re Flores is a pro debtor decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In Flores, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it was proper for bankruptcy judge to confirm a 3 year Chapter 13 plan, instead of a 5 year Chapter 13 plan, because, though the debtors had above-median income, they had no projected disposable income on Form 22C. Form 22C (Chapter 13 Statement of Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and Disposable Income)–which was added by the BAPCPA 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code–is required to be filled out and filed in every Chapter 13 case, and generally requires that Chapter 13 debtors with income above the median income of the state debtor resides in, for a family group the size of debtor’s family group, to do a 5 year (60 month) Chapter 13 plan, NOT a 3 year (36 month) Chapter 13 plan. In Flores, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the US Supreme Court Hamilton v. Lanning decision did NOT overrule that portion of the 9th Circuit’s Kagenveama decision, that allowed over median income Chapter 13 debtors, who had no or negative projected disposable income on form 22C, to propose and confirm a 3 year chapter 13 plan, instead of a 5 year chapter 13 plan that is usually required for over median income Chapter 13 debtors.