Annetta Anna Jones

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Baltimore
In re: 	*
*
ANNETTA ANNA JONES, 	* 	Case No. 05-23576-SD
* 	Chapter 13
*
Debtor. 	*
*
OPINION AS TO DEBTOR’S PROPOSED PLAN
The Debtor filed this case as a Chapter 7 case. When the U.S. Trustee determined there
appeared to be grounds for dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), the Debtor converted this case to
Chapter 13.
Debtor is married, but her spouse is not a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.
The Debtor has proposed a Chapter 13 Plan calling for payments of $276 per month for
36 months. Debtor’s sole source of income is her Social Security payments in the amount of
$276 per month. Her plan thus devotes 100% of her gross income to the plan, without any
reduction for living expenses.
Date signed January 26, 2006
Entered: January 27, 2006 Case 05-23576 Doc 30 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 3

2
The Chapter 13 Trustee objects because the plan would result in only an estimated
distribution to unsecured creditors of 9%. 	If the income of Debtor’s spouse was included in
family income, together with family expenses, to determine Debtor’s disposable income, a much
higher plan payment would be required.
It is certainly the practice in this District, supported by substantial case law around the
country, to use total family income and total family expenses to determine disposable income
available for an individual debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. In fact, Official Form 6I Current Income of
Individual Debtor(s) calls for disclosure of the income of both the debtor and the debtor’s
spouse. The logic is that total household expenses must be matched with total household income
to determine fairly what disposable income of a debtor is available to support a plan.
All of Debtor’s unsecured debts are credit cards, and none are joint. One claim secured
by real estate has been filed that Debtor acknowledges is joint. It includes an installment
payment due when Debtor filed her petition, although Debtor claims her spouse has been making
all payments. Debtor’s counsel represents Debtor intended to exclude all joint secured debt from
her plan so her joint liability would not be discharged and joint secured debt would not be
adversely affected by her plan.
Debtor’s counsel argues that the income of Debtor’s spouse should not be included in
calculating the amount of her required plan payment. Section 1325(b)(1)(B) requires only that
“the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income. .. . will be applied to
make payments. . . “ (emphasis supplied) 	Counsel contends this requirement is fully satisfied
because Debtor is devoting 100% of her gross income. Counsel also maintains that this 100%
Case 05-23576 Doc 30 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 3

3
commitment satisfies the requirements of Section 1325(a) for (1) compliance with Title 11, (2)
good faith, and (3) best interests of creditors.
The court agrees on the unique facts of this case. Only the debtor’s income can be
considered for determining substantial abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). In re Rysso, 321 B.R.
522 (Bankr.D.Minn. 2005). Since Debtor must amend her plan to exclude expressly joint
secured claims, however, confirmation of Debtor’s plan will be denied with leave to amend.
cc: 	John K. Burkhardt, Esquire
Ellen W. Cosby, Trustee
Debtor
U.S. Trustee
End of Opinion
Case 05-23576 Doc 30 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 3