Summary:

Disregarding (with gratuitous  scorn) a long standing case law from its own jurisdiction,  including In re Alexander, 344 B.R. 742, 752 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006),  the bankruptcy court held that even when the "mechanical requirements" of the Means Test at §1325(b)  do not mandate a dividend to unsecured creditors,  the "good faith"  obligations of  11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3)  precluded the debtor from retaining "luxury items"  while only providing a "meager projected dividend to general unsecured creditors when no dividend is required under  the disposable income test,"

Commentary:

Hopefully,  as the bankruptcy court not only disregards Alexander,  but at best gives short shrift to Mort Ranta v. Gorman, 721 F.3d 241, 253 n.15 (4th Cir. 2013)  and Bledsoe v. Cook, 70 F.4th 746, 748 (4th Cir. 2023),  it and the Fourth Circuit will allow an interlocutory appeal.  Otherwise,  as Bullard v.  Blue Hills Bank prohibits the appeal of the denial of confirmation,  consumer debtors will be unable to safely and seek review of whether a "good faith"  analysis can relegate the Means Test to meaninglessness.

To read a copy of the transcript, please see: