Louis A. Diaz, IV

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
In Re: 	* 	Case No: 26-31106
*
Louis A. Diaz, IV 	* 	Chapter 7
*
Debtor(s) 	* 	Judge John P. Gustafson
*
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR(S) APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF THE
CHAPTER 7 FILING FEE AND SCHEDULING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS
This case came before the Court for hearing on June 23, 2026, upon consideration of the Debtor’s
Application to Have Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived [Doc #6]. Counsel for Debtor was present by phone.
The court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(1) to waive the filing fee for a Chapter 7
case where the debtor has income less than 150% of the income official poverty guideline applicable to
the size of family involved. The court set the Application for hearing because Debtor did not appear to
qualify under the statute for waiver of the $338 filing fee because Debtor’s income exceeds 150% of the
HHS poverty guidelines.
At the hearing, Debtor’s Counsel asserted that the Debtor’s military disability benefits should not
be considered as income for purposes of determining whether the Debtor was eligible for waiver of the
Chapter 7 Filing Fee.
Section 1930(f)(1) provides:
Under the procedures prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the
district court or the bankruptcy court may waive the filing fee in a case under chapter 7 of
title 11 for an individual if the court determines that such individual has income less than
150 percent of the income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and analysis
of this court the document set forth below. This document has been entered electronically in
the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Dated: June 26 2026
26-31106-jpg Doc 15 FILED 06/26/26 ENTERED 06/26/26 15:08:50 Page 1 of 5

2
and Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of the size involved and is
unable to pay that fee in installments. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “filing
fee” means the filing fee required by subsection (a), or any other fee prescribed by the
Judicial Conference under subsections (b) and (c) that is payable to the clerk upon the
commencement of a case under chapter 7.
Collier on Bankruptcy states:
The first prong of the test, whether the debtor’s income is less than 150 percent
of the poverty line for a family that is the size of the debtor’s family, is objective. There
is no room for the courts to exercise discretion with respect to whether the debtor satisfies
this criterion. If the debtor’s income is not less than 150 percent of the applicable
poverty line figure, then the debtor is not eligible for the fee waiver.
1 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶9.05[1][c] (16th ed. 2026)(footnote omitted).
Under the statute, the Judicial Conference of the United States is authorized to set forth
procedures for waiver of the filing fee in Chapter 7 cases. The Guide to Judiciary Policy1 (“GJP”)
Volume 8, Ch. 8, Section 820, et seq., provides guidance where debtors are applying for a waiver of the
Chapter 7 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1930(f)(1).
Section 820.20 of the GJP states:
(B) The income for comparison to the poverty guidelines is the ‟Total Combined
Monthly Income” as reported (or as will be reported) on Schedule I.
(C) Amounts received as non-cash government assistance must be deducted from the
total amount reported on Schedule I for fee waiver consideration.
Thus, courts are directed to review the income listed as “Total Combined Monthly Income” on
Schedule I, subtracting only “non-cash government assistance”.
1/ The reference portion of the text of the Guide to Judicial Policy can be found at:
https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/bankruptcy-case-policies
And at 1 Collier on Bankruptcy, Ch. App. 9B at 9-57 to 9-64 (16th ed. 2023).
26-31106-jpg Doc 15 FILED 06/26/26 ENTERED 06/26/26 15:08:50 Page 2 of 5

3
The question raised here is the relationship between “current monthly income” and “Total
Combined Monthly Income”2 described in the GJP. “Current monthly income” is defined in 11
U.S.C. §101(10A) as income received during a 6-month lookback period. §101(10A)(A).
Among the exclusions in the Bankruptcy Code’s definition are benefits received under the Social
Security Act, and specified types of military monthly compensation associated with “a disability,
combat-related injury or disability”. §101(10A)(B)(ii). The definition of current monthly income
is “a critical component of the means test added to section 707(b) and of the disposable income
test under section 1325(b).” 2 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶101(10A) (16th ed. 2026). In Chapter 7
cases, the Means Test calculations have their own Official Forms – separate from Schedule I.
See, Official Forms B 122A-1, B 122A-2.
In contrast to the exclusions applicable to reporting “current monthly income”,
bankruptcy courts have stated that debtor are required to list “all income” on Schedule I, Official
Form 106I. See, Marshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065, 1069 n.2 (7th Cir. 2018)(“Schedule I requires
the debtor to report gross monthly income from all sources.”); In re Mulholland, 2011 WL
4352293 at *6, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3559 at *24 (Bankr. D.N.M. Sept. 16, 2011)(“Schedules I
and J require debtors to lists all income and expenses.”); In re Cunningham, 2008 WL 1696756 at
*2, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2724 at *8 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. April 9, 2008); In re Lordy, 214 B.R. 650,
668 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1997).
More specifically, courts have held that income specifically excluded from “current
monthly income” by §101(10A)(B)(ii) is still required to be listed as income on Schedule I. See,
Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327, 335 (6th Cir. 2011)(“As required, the Appellees also filed
Schedule I, listing gross monthly income of $9,115.63 (including Social Security benefits for one
of the Appellees and income from employment for the other) ....”); In re Williamson, 2023 WL
2144534 at *12, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 451 at *26 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2023)(“There is no
question that a debtor must list their Social Security income on Schedule I.”); In re Damron, 598
B.R. 350, 354 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2019); In re Scott, 488 B.R. 246, 249 (Bankr. M.D. Ga.
2013)(“social security benefits must be included as income on Schedule I”). This requirement is
reflected on Schedule I, Line 8e, which requires: “List all other income regularly received: Social
Security”.
2/ The current Official Form for Schedule I (B 106I) does not have a line designated as “Total Combined Monthly
Income”. Previous cases looked to Line 16 of Schedule I. After Schedule I was revised into its present form, the
total referred to by the GJP is found at Line 10. In re Johnson, 2021 WL 4047460 at *1 n. 2, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS
2447 at *2 n. 2 (Bankr. D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2021)(‘Schedule I, line 10. “Monthly income” is comprised of monthly
take-home pay, plus all other income regularly received on lines 8a-8h, if any; . . .”).
26-31106-jpg Doc 15 FILED 06/26/26 ENTERED 06/26/26 15:08:50 Page 3 of 5

4
Similarly, the instruction for Schedule I specifically states: “Note that the income you
report on Schedule I may be different from the income you report on other bankruptcy forms. For
example, the Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income (Official Form 122A-1),
Chapter 11 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income (Official Form 122B), and the Chapter 13
Statement of Your Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period (Official
Form 122C-1) all use a different definition of income and apply that definition to a different
period of time. Schedule I asks about the income that you are now receiving, while the other
forms ask about income you received in the applicable time period before filing. So the amount
of income reported in any of those forms may be different from the amount reported here.” These
instructions appear to be consistent with the caselaw on the difference between Schedule I income
and “current monthly income”.
In explaining that IFP applications generally operate under more stringent standards - in
terms of including income - this court gave as an example: “social security income, which is
excluded from the Means Test, is included in determining eligibility under the 150% of poverty
level guidelines.” In re Bussey, 2014 WL 2765703 at *2, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 2760 at *4 (Bankr.
N.D. Ohio June 18, 2014)(dicta).
Here, Debtor’s Schedule I did not list his military disability benefits as either “Pension or
retirement income” [Line 8g] or “Other monthly income” [Line 8h]. Thus, no part of the
$2,362.30 per month in military income appeared on Line 10, where the sources of income listed
above that line are totaled. Instead, Debtor listed “Military Disability Benefits” on Line 11, as
“other regular contributions to the expenses that you listed in Schedule J.” This is not the proper
way or place to list that income – it should have been listed either on Line 8g (“Pension or
retirement income”) or Line 8h (“Add all other income”).3 If it was included on either of those
lines, it would have been included in the total for Line 10. And, as discussed above, if properly
included in the total on Line 10, the income would be included in the determination of whether
Debtor’s income exceeded 150% of the Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines. In re
Johnson, 2021 WL 4047460 at *1 n. 2, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2447 at *2 n. 2 (Bankr. D.
Kan. Sept. 3, 2021).
While the fact that Social Security and Military Disability payments are both excluded
from the Means Test by the same provision [§101(10A)(B)(ii)] should be sufficient to find that
3/ Counsel indicated that his software balked at putting this income – otherwise properly excluded from any Means
Test calculation – in Schedule I. The statements in this decision are not a criticism of what was done in filing this
case or raising this issue. Instead, they are intended as guidance for future cases involving similar issues.
26-31106-jpg Doc 15 FILED 06/26/26 ENTERED 06/26/26 15:08:50 Page 4 of 5

5
they should be treated in the same manner in evaluating a debtor’s income in a Chapter 7 fee
waiver request, there is a bankruptcy case that deals specifically with military disability benefits.
The court in In re Foistner, 2025 WL 25448, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2 (Bankr. D.N.H. Jan.
2, 2025) dealt with the issue of a fee waiver under a different, but related statute: 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a), which applies to the waiver of filing fees associated with an appeal. Foistner held that
federal courts must consider income from all sources when determining fee waivers. In re
Foistner, 2025 WL 25448, at *1, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2 at *4 (Bankr. D.N.H. Jan. 2, 2025).
While Congress has “expressly excluded” certain types of income from current monthly income,
“Congress has not limited the income types a court can consider in determining fee waivers.” Id.
The Foistner decision held that the Debtors must include Social Security and military benefits in
their income when applying for a fee waiver. Id. Further, “When deciding whether to waive
appellate fees and whether to allow an appellant to proceed without prepaying the fees, federal
courts generally must consider income from all sources, along with expenses, assets, liabilities,
and other factors.” Id. (citing, In re Cary, 2017 WL 1501395, at *1-2, 2017 U.S. Dist.. LEXIS
68268 at **2-5 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2017) (applying § 1930(f) in affirming denial of appellate fee
waiver)).
Applying Foistner to the case at hand, it is an additional reason for holding that the Debtor must
include his military benefits in his monthly income for his Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waiver Application.
When the $2,362.30 in Military Disability Benefits are included in “Total Combined Monthly
Income”, the Debtor’s monthly income is greater than $1,995, which is income limit for a fee
waiver.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Application to Have Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived [Doc #6],
and instead orders that the Debtor shall pay the Chapter 7 filing fee of $338 under the following terms:
$ 85.00 on or before 	July 10, 2026
$ 85.00 on or before 	July 31, 2026
$ 85.00 on or before 	August 14, 2026
$ 83.00 on or before 	September 4, 2026
The entire filing fee will be due even if this case is dismissed, and if not paid in full, Debtor(s)
will be prohibited from filing or obtaining relief in another case under any chapter of the Bankruptcy
Code unless the unpaid balance due is paid in full.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26-31106-jpg Doc 15 FILED 06/26/26 ENTERED 06/26/26 15:08:50 Page 5 of 5