Skip navigation.
Law Office of Jeffrey Solomon

Free Consultation
(954) 967-9800

3864 Sheridan St . Hollywood, FL 33021

Archive for July, 2011

New 11th Cir Decision on Chapter 13 and Sovereign Immunity: State of FL Dept. of Revenue v Diaz

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

This past Wednesday the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals entered an important decision on sovereign immunity, In re Diaz, Florida Department of Revenue v Diaz, 2011 US App Lexis 15462 (11th Cir 2011). This is an important case for practitioners to review, but I am not going to review the sovereign immunity analyses of the case.

I do want to comment on how this affects chapter 13. Sometimes I just do not understand the 11th circuit decisions when they consider chapter 13 cases. In what appears to me to be directly contrary to the United States Supreme Court decision in US Student Aid Funds v Espinosa, the court held that a creditor with a non-dischargeable claim for child support as well as taxes is not bound by the claim allowed in the bankruptcy court. Even though the creditor was fully paid in the plan based on the allowed claim, the creditor could still claim moneys it is owed such as interest because the underlying debt could not be discharged.

Means test: 3 cars allowed in Johnson decision

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

A July, 8, 2011 decision may provide great assistance to over median debtors. In re Johnson ,2011 Bankr. Lexis 2518, Case No. 8:11-bk-00810-MGW.(Bankr. M.D. FL 2011)

The operating expense allowance on the means test for above median income debtors permits the deduction of the allowance for two vehicles. There is no provision to use an operating allowance for three cars. The IRS table for Local Transportation Expenses only provides for this expense for 2 vehicles.

Debtors often have more than two vehicles. Consider husband and wife have two vehicles and both work. They have a minor child who has use of a third car for school and perhaps for extracurricular activities. But the IRS Collection Financial Standards, which were in part relied upon by the Supreme Court this year in Ransom, provide that other reasonable and necessary expenses may be allowed if for the health and welfare of the family or for the production of income. (Note that these collection standards also contain the provision for an additional $200 operating allowance for vehicles that are more than 6 years old or have more than 75,000 miles.)

Over the United States Trustee’s objection, Judge Williamson in the Middle District held that though the operating expense amount is fixed, that the debtor could deduct three operating expense allowances for three vehicles, subject to appropriate proof at an evidentiary hearing.

There is some bad news here. It would be nice for a debtor to be able to claim an expense higher than the authorized operating expense. Insurance costs, gasoline, tolls, and repairs may well exceed these costs. Special circumstances might have to be claimed, but this can be a difficult claim.

Note that the difference between allowing two and three operating expenses could mean the difference between eligibility of chapter 7 and chapter 13. But even if a debtor is in chapter 13, the extra allowance can reduce the required plan payment.

As a bankruptcy attorney in the Southern District of Florida, I would expect (hope) that the Johnson decision would be applied here as well.

Another Osborne v Dumoulin case: Allen

Tuesday, July 5th, 2011

Judge Kimball, bankruptcy judge sitting in West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida, addressed the issue of the debtor’s change of mind on which Florida exemption to take. Recall that the debtor can take an additional $4,000 exemption if the debtor does not receive the benefit of the homestead, FL Stat. 222.25(4). In re Allen, 2011 Bankr. Lexis 24269, (Bankr. S.D. FL. June 21, 2011) involved the debtors’ election to change their mind about which exemption to take. They originally claimed the homestead exempt, but after the deadline for creditors and the trustee to object, the debtors amended their exemption to delete the homestead election and claim the additional personal property exemption. Relying on the Eleventh Circuit Court’s decision in Osborne v Dumoulin, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9702(11th Cir. May 10, 2011), Judge Kimball recognized that the clear holding of the Eleventh Circuit was to permit the amendment to exemptions.

However, it should be noted that the amendment must be granted unless there is an allegation of bad faith or prejudice to creditors.