August 5, 2016
Authored by: Mark Duedall
So, a ruling came out in June that we in The Bankruptcy Cave have been dying to blog about (and not just so we can use the blog title above). Forgive the delay – heavy workloads and summer vacations often preclude timely blog posts. But this one is a doozy, better late than never on this blog post.
In re Perez, Case No. 15-31645 (Bankr. E.D. Wisc., June 3, 2016) is one of those weird Chapter 13 cases (and we know most folks’ eyes glaze over when they read “Chapter 13” – ours do too, but just keep reading for once). It addresses the definition of “current monthly income,” which partially drives what a Chapter 13 debtor must pay unsecured creditors over time via Chapter 13 plan. In Perez, the debtor worked for an auto dealer; part of her pay was her regular use of a “demo” car. She was w-2’ed for it to