Meehean v. Vara (In re Meehean)
Decision Date | 18 August 2020 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy Case No. 19-46085-tjt,Civil Action No. 20-CV-10380 |
Citation | 619 B.R. 371 |
Parties | IN RE: Wayne D. MEEHEAN and Reeda L. Meehean, Debtors. Wayne D. Meehean and Reeda L. Meehean, Appellants, v. Andrew R. Vara, United States Trustee, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Charissa R. Potts, East Pointe, MI, for Appellants.
Andrew R. Vara, Detroit, MI, pro se.
This matter is presently before the Court on debtors' appeal of an order of the Bankruptcy Court granting the motion of the United States Trustee ("Trustee") to dismiss their Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(B). The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The Court reviews a Bankruptcy Court's factual findings for clear error; its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Cook , 457 F.3d 561, 565 (6th Cir. 2006) ; In re Musilli , 398 B.R. 447, 452-53 (E.D. Mich. 2008). "[T]he ultimate question of whether to dismiss for substantial abuse under § 707(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion." In re Behlke , 358 F.3d 429, 434 (6th Cir. 2004). As the issues have been fully briefed, the Court shall dispense with oral argument and decide the appeal without a hearing pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).
The debtors in this matter filed their Chapter 7 petition in April 2019. They listed $5,842 in monthly income ($4,007 in Social Security benefits and $1,835 in pension income) and $4,446 in monthly expenses.1 Debtors listed $142,871 in secured debt (the mortgage loan on their home) and $43,100 in unsecured non-priority debt, mainly credit card debt.2 They own property, including their home and a boat, worth $157,500.
In July 2019, the trustee moved to dismiss the petition under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(B),3 arguing that debtors' "Social Security income should be considered as a factor in assessing the Debtors' need for bankruptcy relief." Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 12. The trustee also questioned the reasonableness of the monthly amounts debtors claimed to spend on clothing/laundry, personal care, transportation, and entertainment. Id. ¶ 13. The trustee argued that with "some belt tightening," and if their Social Security income is considered, debtors could pay off all their unsecured debt within five years under a Chapter 13 plan. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. In short, the trustee's argument is that "[t]he Debtors' attempt to obtain relief under Chapter 7 when they have the ability to pay their creditors with little or no adjustment to their expenses constitutes an abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7." Id. ¶ 17. The trustee noted that "[c]ourts are divided on the question of whether social security income should be considered in an analysis under § 707(b)(3)." Trustee's Mem. of Law at 2.
In opposing this motion, debtors argued that their Chapter 7 petition is not abusive because Social Security income may not be considered in assessing the "totality of the circumstances of the debtor's financial situation" under § 707(b)(3)(B). Among other arguments, debtors pointed to 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), which states that Social Security benefits are not "subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law." According to debtors, this means that their Social Security benefits must be disregarded in determining whether they have the ability to pay their debts.
Id. (footnote omitted). When debtors declined to file a motion to convert to a Chapter 13 proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the case.
On appeal, the parties repeat their arguments as to whether a bankruptcy court may consider debtors' Social Security benefits in assessing the "the totality of the circumstances ... of [their] financial situation" under § 707(b)(3)(B). Having considered the parties' arguments de novo, the Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that Social Security benefits may, among other relevant factors, properly be considered in making this determination.
The starting point is the statute itself. Section 707(b)(3)(B) permits the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss a Chapter 7 petition if, in that court's judgment, "the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter" considering "the totality of the circumstances ... of the debtor's financial situation." "Totality" is "as inclusive [a term] as it is possible to employ." In re Riggs , 495 B.R. 704, 716 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2013). Congress chose to place only one limit on what the Bankruptcy Court may consider in evaluating a debtor's financial situation in determining whether, under § 707(b)(3)(B), his/her Chapter 7 petition is abusive, namely, "the court may not take into consideration whether a debtor has made, or continues to make, charitable contributions ... to any qualified religious or charitable entity or organization." Section 707(b)(1). With this single exception, § 707(b)(3)(B) permits inquiry into the entirety of the debtor's "financial situation." This contrasts notably with the inquiry under § 707(b)(2), which presumes abuse if the debtor's "current monthly income" (a term of art that is defined by the Bankruptcy Code to exclude Social Security benefits, see 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A)(B)(ii)(I) ) exceeds a certain amount. If Congress had intended, in like manner, to exclude Social Security benefits from the § 707(b)(3)(B) inquiry, it easily could have done so by adding the words "in light of his current monthly income" at the end of this subsection. Instead, Congress directed the Bankruptcy Court to evaluate abuse based on the "totality" of the debtor's financial situation with no such limitation. This suggests that the Bankruptcy Court should consider all of the debtor's income and expenses, as well as any other factors relevant to his/her financial situation.
The parties agree that the leading Sixth Circuit case addressing § 707(b)(3)(B) is In re Krohn, supra. That court's comments bear repeating here at length:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Williamson
...calculated that by combining both sources of income, the debtors would have a surplus of $1,252.32 each month. Based on the debts in issue, Meehean stated that the debtors could afford "pay their unsecured creditors in full in about 41 months" 611 B.R. at 579 (emphasis in original). The deb......
-
In re Klinger
...886 F.2d at 126 (inability of a debtor to qualify for Chapter 13 relief not dispositive of abuse of Chapter 7); In re Meehean, 619 B.R. 371, 379 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2020), affirming 611 B.R. 574 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2020). The court cannot compel a debtor to file or convert to Chapt......
-
In re Linton
...dismissal under some circumstances. Krohn 886 F.2d at 126; In re Meehean, 611 B.R. 574, 580 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020), aff'd, 619 B.R. 371 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2020). Other factors include "whether the debtor enjoys a stable source of future income, whether he is eligible for adjustment of h......