CASES IN REVIEW
payments consistent with § 1322( b)( 5)." In re Diggins, 561 B. R. 782( Bankr. D. Colo., Dec. 20, 2016)( case no. 1:10-bk-40335).
Chapter 13— Modification of confirmed plan: In two cases in which the Chapter 13 debtors prepaid the last five and seven months, respectively, of their plans, which each called for $ 100 monthly payments, the court denied the Chapter 13 trustee ' s motion to modify the debtors ' plans so as to require the debtors to make additional $ 100 monthly payments for the remaining duration of their plan terms. In both of these cases, the court said, a balancing of the benefits accruing to the debtors in getting their confirmed plans completed and behind them, with the relatively small additional payments to creditors, clearly favored the debtors. Accordingly, the debtors ' prepayment of their confirmed plans did not justify a finding of cause to further amend their plans. In re Roehm, 2016 WL 7984346( Bankr. S. D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2016)( case nos. 4:13-bk-41385, 4:14-bk-40163).
Judicial estoppel— Application under circumstances: The Chapter 13 debtor was not judicially estopped from prosecuting an undisclosed wage-and-hour claim where there was no basis in the record for a finding that the debtor was aware of enough facts to know that she had a legal claim until she retained legal counsel about a month before her bankruptcy case was dismissed, and, more importantly, the bankruptcy court never accepted or relied upon the debtor ' s nondisclosure of the claim. She did not receive a discharge, a favorable ruling, or any other benefit; rather, her bankruptcy case was dismissed due to her noncompliance with her Chapter 13 plan. Sadlowski v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,--- Fed. Appx.----, 2016 WL 7448760( 9th Cir., Dec. 28, 2016)( case no. 14-56654).
Means test— Expenses— Secured debt expense: A secured debt deduction under Code § 707( b)( 2)( A)( iii)( I) is not subject to a requirement of reasonable necessity. Nor is the deduction, in a Chapter 13 case, subject to a good faith inquiry. In re Colon, 561 B. R. 682( Bankr. N. D. Ill., Dec. 29, 2016)( case no. 1:16-bk-9951).
Property of the estate— Exemptions— Of entireties property under Code § 522( b)( 3)( B): The Chapter 7 debtor ' s right under Code § 522( b)( 3)( B) to exempt certain real property owned in a tenancy by the entireties with the debtor ' s non-filing spouse was not extinguished by the postpetition death of the spouse. The rights of sole creditors against property held by the debtor as a tenant by the entireties are fixed as of the petition date, and the Bankruptcy Code does not provide for those rights to expand or contract upon the postpetition death of the non-filing spouse. In re Buckley, 2016 WL 7480233( Bankr. D. Md., Dec. 29, 2016)( case no. 1:16-bk-17946), appeal filed, Bellinger v. Buckley, Case No. 1:17-cv-68( D. Md., filed Jan. 10, 2017).
© National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center www. ncbrc. org
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys Spring 2017 CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY JOURNAL 39