Hildebrand v. Thomas (In re Thomas), 395 B.R. 914, 922-23 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008) (Gregg, McIvor, Shea-Stonum)

(To determine disposable income for debtor with CMI greater than applicable median family income, amount scheduled as contractually due on account of secured debt is deductible notwithstanding that plan proposes to surrender collateral. Applying Hildebrand v. Petro (In re Petro), 395 B.R. 369 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008), remand is necessary because bankruptcy court did not consider that “projected disposable income” is different from “disposable income” and surrender of collateral through plan may change entitlement of unsecured creditors. “[T]he means test is a mechanical, formulaic approach that as applied is no different in chapter 7 than it is in chapter 13. The Panel has not located any clearly expressed legislative intention that secured debt expenses deducted from the means test in chapter 7 should be different from secured debt expenses deducted from the disposable income test in chapter 13. . . . [A] chapter 13 debtor may deduct, for purposes of determining disposable income under § 1325(b)(2), payments for collateral the debtor intends to surrender. . . . [T]hat disposable income must then be compared to the Debtors’ projected disposable income, as reflected in Debtors’ income and expenses as of the effective date of the plan, as required by § 1325(b)(1)(B). . . . [T]he court may not confirm the plan if the court finds that debtor’s schedules or other credible evidence require a reassessment of disposable income as determined by the means test under § 1325(b)(2) and (b)(3).”).