The question revolves around the determination of disposable income in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). In West Virginia, as in other jurisdictions, the calculation of disposable income is a critical step in confirming a Chapter 13 plan. The Bankruptcy Code, specifically Section 1325(b), mandates that a debtor’s disposable income must be applied to payments to unsecured creditors. Disposable income is generally defined as income received by the debtor that is not reasonably necessary to be expended for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor, or for a domestic support obligation that first becomes payable after the commencement of the case. For median-income debtors, the calculation is less complex, often relying on a presumption that their expenses are reasonable. However, for above-median-income debtors, the calculation becomes more involved, requiring a detailed examination of allowed expenses. BAPCPA introduced the “means test” concept, which, while primarily for Chapter 7 eligibility, influences the calculation of disposable income in Chapter 13 by setting standards for certain expenses. The allowed expenses are categorized into specific standards outlined in Section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iv) of the Bankruptcy Code, which include the National Standards for food, clothing, apparel, and services, housing and utilities, and transportation, as well as Local Standards for transportation and housing, and the IRS allowable expenses. In this scenario, Ms. Gable is an above-median-income debtor in West Virginia. Her gross monthly income is \$6,000. The applicable median family income for a family of three in West Virginia is \$5,000. Since her income exceeds the median, the presumption of reasonableness for expenses is rebutted. The Bankruptcy Code, through the means test provisions incorporated by reference for expense calculation in Chapter 13, limits certain expenses to IRS standards and other specified amounts. For housing and utilities, the IRS standard for a family of three in a moderate cost area of West Virginia is \$1,600. For transportation, the IRS standard for car ownership and operating costs for one vehicle is \$500. For food and clothing, the IRS standard for a family of three is \$700. For other necessary living expenses not covered by these categories, the debtor can claim actual expenses, but these must be reasonably necessary. The debtor claims \$800 for miscellaneous necessary expenses. Therefore, the calculation of her monthly disposable income is as follows: Gross Monthly Income = \$6,000 Allowed Expenses: Housing and Utilities (IRS Standard) = \$1,600 Transportation (IRS Standard) = \$500 Food and Clothing (IRS Standard) = \$700 Miscellaneous Necessary Expenses = \$800 Total Allowed Expenses = \$1,600 + \$500 + \$700 + \$800 = \$3,600 Disposable Income = Gross Monthly Income – Total Allowed Expenses Disposable Income = \$6,000 – \$3,600 = \$2,400 This \$2,400 represents the amount that must be committed to the Chapter 13 plan for distribution to creditors. The precise amounts for IRS standards can vary based on location and family size, but the principle remains consistent for above-median-income debtors in calculating disposable income for Chapter 13.

The concept tested here is the dischargeability of debts in Chapter 7 bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) and its specific application in West Virginia. Section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code addresses debts for which the debtor obtained money, property, services, or an extension or renewal of credit by making a materially false written statement in writing about his or her financial condition. For such a debt to be non-dischargeable, the creditor must prove several elements: (1) the debtor made a statement of financial condition in writing; (2) the statement was false and the debtor knew it was false; (3) the debtor made the statement with the intent to deceive; (4) the creditor reasonably relied on the statement; and (5) the creditor incurred a loss as a result of the reliance. In West Virginia, as in other states, the burden of proof rests entirely on the creditor to establish each of these elements. The debtor’s subsequent financial hardship or the fact that the debt was incurred for necessities does not, by itself, render a debt dischargeable if it meets the criteria for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B). Therefore, the key factor is the creditor’s ability to demonstrate the debtor’s intent to deceive through a materially false written financial statement that the creditor reasonably relied upon.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the determination of whether certain property is exempt from a bankruptcy estate is governed by federal bankruptcy law, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 522, which allows debtors to choose between federal exemptions and state-specific exemptions. West Virginia has opted out of the federal exemption scheme, meaning debtors filing for bankruptcy in West Virginia must use the exemptions provided by West Virginia state law. The West Virginia Code provides a list of exemptions, including specific provisions for homestead exemptions, personal property exemptions, and exemptions for certain types of income. For instance, West Virginia Code § 38-10-4 outlines the homestead exemption, which protects a certain amount of equity in a principal residence. Additionally, West Virginia Code § 38-10-5 details exemptions for personal property, such as household furnishings, wearing apparel, and tools of the trade. The question revolves around the ability of a debtor to exempt a specific asset. Without a specific dollar amount or type of asset being mentioned in the question, the focus shifts to the general principles of exemption availability under West Virginia law. The ability to exempt an asset hinges on whether it falls within a category enumerated by West Virginia’s exemption statutes and whether the debtor meets any residency or ownership requirements specified therein. A debtor’s principal residence, if occupied by the debtor, is generally a strong candidate for exemption under homestead provisions. Other personal property may also be exempt up to certain statutory limits. The core concept is that West Virginia law dictates which assets a debtor can keep, and these are distinct from the federal exemptions that a state can choose to disallow. Therefore, the correct answer must reflect the application of West Virginia’s specific exemption statutes.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) significantly altered the landscape of consumer bankruptcy in the United States, including provisions relevant to West Virginia. One key aspect is the means test, designed to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy system by individuals with the ability to repay their debts. For Chapter 7, the means test determines if a debtor’s income is presumptively too high to qualify for liquidation. The calculation involves comparing the debtor’s current monthly income (CMI) to the median income for a family of similar size in West Virginia. If the CMI is below the applicable median, the debtor generally qualifies for Chapter 7. If it is above the median, the debtor must then subtract certain allowed expenses, as defined by the Bankruptcy Code, from their CMI. If, after subtracting these expenses, the remaining disposable income is below a certain threshold, the debtor may still qualify for Chapter 7. The Act also introduced stricter requirements for credit counseling and debtor education, as well as limitations on certain exemptions and dischargeability of debts. The specific median income figures are updated periodically by the U.S. Trustee Program. For the purpose of this question, we are focusing on the initial income threshold determination. The question tests the understanding of how the means test operates as a gatekeeper for Chapter 7 relief, emphasizing the comparison to state median income as the primary hurdle. The correct option reflects the fundamental principle that exceeding the median income in West Virginia triggers further scrutiny and a more complex calculation of disposable income.

The scenario involves a debtor in West Virginia filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. A key aspect of Chapter 13 is the repayment plan, which must propose to pay creditors in full or as much as possible from the debtor’s projected disposable income. The Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1), outlines the “best interests of creditors” test and the “disposable income” test. The disposable income test requires that the plan pay at least the amount of projected disposable income over the life of the plan if the plan proposes to pay less than full amount to unsecured creditors. Projected disposable income is calculated by taking the debtor’s income and subtracting reasonably necessary living expenses and amounts reasonably necessary to continue the operation of the debtor’s business. In this case, the debtor’s projected income is \( \$4,500 \) per month. The debtor’s reasonably necessary expenses are \( \$3,000 \) per month. The debtor’s business is a sole proprietorship that requires an additional \( \$500 \) per month for its continued operation. Therefore, the debtor’s projected disposable income is calculated as: \( \text{Projected Disposable Income} = \text{Monthly Income} – \text{Necessary Living Expenses} – \text{Necessary Business Expenses} \). Plugging in the values: \( \text{Projected Disposable Income} = \$4,500 – \$3,000 – \$500 = \$1,000 \) per month. The plan must propose to pay at least this amount to unsecured creditors over the life of the plan. If the plan proposes to pay less than the full amount owed to unsecured creditors, it must commit this projected disposable income.

The scenario presented involves a debtor in West Virginia seeking to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. A crucial aspect of Chapter 13 filings is the determination of disposable income, which dictates the amount available for the repayment plan. West Virginia, like all states, adheres to the federal bankruptcy code, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). This section outlines the means test, which compares a debtor’s income to the median income for a household of similar size in West Virginia. If the debtor’s income exceeds the median, a calculation of disposable income is required. The calculation of disposable income under § 1325(b)(2) involves subtracting certain allowed expenses from the debtor’s current monthly income. These allowed expenses are generally those necessary for the maintenance or support of the debtor and their dependents, as well as specific deductions outlined in the Bankruptcy Code, such as those for secured debts, priority claims, and certain non-discretionary living expenses, often guided by IRS standards for the relevant period and location. The question hinges on understanding which expenses are permissible deductions when calculating disposable income for a Chapter 13 plan in West Virginia, as this directly impacts the feasibility and terms of the proposed repayment plan. The correct approach involves identifying expenses that are legally recognized as reducing disposable income under the Bankruptcy Code, which are typically those necessary for the debtor and their family’s support and maintenance, and those specifically enumerated as deductible.

The scenario involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in West Virginia. The debtor, Ms. Anya Sharma, has a homestead exemption in West Virginia. West Virginia Code §38-10-3 grants a homestead exemption of up to $35,000 for a principal residence. The debtor’s home is valued at $150,000, and there is a consensual lien of $100,000. The equity in the home is calculated as the market value minus the secured debt: \( \$150,000 – \$100,000 = \$50,000 \). The homestead exemption available to Ms. Sharma is $35,000. Therefore, the non-exempt equity is the total equity minus the exemption amount: \( \$50,000 – \$35,000 = \$15,000 \). This non-exempt equity of $15,000 becomes property of the bankruptcy estate and is available to be liquidated by the trustee for distribution to unsecured creditors. The question tests the application of West Virginia’s specific homestead exemption amount to a debtor’s equity in their primary residence in a Chapter 7 case. Understanding how to calculate equity and then subtract the applicable exemption is crucial for assessing the potential distribution to creditors.

The question concerns the application of West Virginia homestead exemption in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. West Virginia Code §38-10-4 allows a debtor to exempt their interest in real property used as a principal residence up to a certain value. However, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) introduced Section 522(p) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits the homestead exemption amount for debtors who have owned their residence for less than 1,215 days prior to filing bankruptcy. If the debtor has owned the property for less than 1,215 days, the exemption is capped at a specific federal amount, currently \$189,050, unless the debtor qualifies for an exception. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy has owned his West Virginia residence for only 800 days. Therefore, the BAPCPA limitation applies. The West Virginia homestead exemption amount is \$35,000. Since the debtor has owned the property for less than 1,215 days, the federal cap of \$189,050 applies to the West Virginia exemption. The debtor can claim the full \$35,000 West Virginia homestead exemption because it is less than the federal cap. The remaining equity in the property, if any, would be available to the bankruptcy estate. The question asks about the maximum amount of the homestead exemption Mr. Abernathy can claim. Given the ownership period and the West Virginia exemption amount, the applicable limit is the lower of the West Virginia statutory amount or the federal cap. In this case, the West Virginia statutory amount of \$35,000 is well below the federal cap of \$189,050. Thus, Mr. Abernathy can claim the full \$35,000 West Virginia homestead exemption.

The scenario involves a debtor in West Virginia filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. A key aspect of Chapter 13 is the repayment plan, which must pay unsecured creditors at least as much as they would receive in a Chapter 7 liquidation. This is known as the “best interests of creditors” test, codified in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4). In West Virginia, as in all states, the debtor can claim certain property as exempt under federal or state law. West Virginia allows debtors to elect either the federal exemptions or the state exemptions, but not a combination. For the purpose of this question, we assume the debtor is using the West Virginia state exemptions. The debtor’s non-exempt assets in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation would determine the amount unsecured creditors would receive. If the debtor had non-exempt assets valued at $15,000, and the administrative expenses of a Chapter 7 case (e.g., trustee fees, attorney fees) were estimated at 10% of the liquidation value, then the net amount available for unsecured creditors in Chapter 7 would be $15,000 – (0.10 * $15,000) = $15,000 – $1,500 = $13,500. This $13,500 would be distributed among the unsecured creditors. Therefore, the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan must propose to pay unsecured creditors at least $13,500 over the life of the plan. The question asks for the minimum amount that must be paid to unsecured creditors in the Chapter 13 plan to satisfy the best interests of creditors test, assuming the Chapter 7 liquidation would yield $13,500 for them after administrative expenses. Thus, the minimum amount is $13,500.

The scenario involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in West Virginia by a debtor who owns a single-family home. The debtor wishes to retain this home. The key concept here is the determination of non-exempt equity in the homestead. West Virginia law provides a homestead exemption. For bankruptcy purposes, the debtor can exempt a certain amount of equity in their principal residence. If the debtor’s equity in the home exceeds the applicable exemption amount, the trustee may sell the home, pay the debtor the exempt amount, and distribute the remaining proceeds to creditors. The question hinges on identifying the correct exemption amount for a principal residence in West Virginia. West Virginia Code §38-10-4 provides that a debtor may exempt up to \$25,000 in the equity of their principal residence. In this case, the debtor’s equity is \$40,000, and the West Virginia homestead exemption is \$25,000. Therefore, the non-exempt equity is the total equity minus the exemption amount: \$40,000 – \$25,000 = \$15,000. This \$15,000 represents the portion of the home’s equity that is available to the bankruptcy trustee for distribution to creditors, assuming the trustee decides to sell the property. The debtor’s ability to keep the home would depend on whether they can pay this non-exempt amount to the trustee.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the determination of whether a debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy hinges on specific provisions within the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For debts arising from a debtor’s willful and malicious injury to another entity or to the property of another entity, Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code generally renders such debts non-dischargeable. The core of this exception lies in the debtor’s intent. The injury must be both willful, meaning the debtor intended the act that caused the injury, and malicious, meaning the debtor acted with wrongful intent or reckless disregard for the rights of another. It is not enough for the injury to be a foreseeable consequence of the debtor’s actions; the debtor must have intended the harm itself. In a scenario involving a dispute over a business contract in West Virginia where one party intentionally sabotaged the other’s equipment, causing significant damage, the bankruptcy court would examine the debtor’s subjective intent. If the evidence demonstrates that the debtor deliberately damaged the equipment with the knowledge that such damage would harm the other party’s business operations, the debt arising from that damage would likely be deemed non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(6). This principle ensures that debtors cannot escape liability for harms they intentionally inflict upon others, thereby upholding principles of fairness and accountability within the bankruptcy system. The specific application of this rule involves a fact-intensive inquiry into the debtor’s state of mind at the time of the injurious conduct.

The scenario involves a debtor in West Virginia filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The debtor owns a 2015 Ford F-150 valued at $18,000 and owes $12,000 on a loan secured by the truck. The debtor wishes to keep the truck. In West Virginia, the federal exemption for motor vehicles is $3,000. However, West Virginia also allows debtors to elect state exemptions, which include a motor vehicle exemption of $5,000 under WV Code § 38-10-4(a)(1). The debtor’s equity in the truck is the value of the truck minus the secured debt, which is $18,000 – $12,000 = $6,000. When a debtor wishes to keep collateral securing a debt in a Chapter 7 case, they must typically reaffirm the debt, redeem the property, or exempt the property. Reaffirmation involves agreeing to remain liable for the debt. Redemption involves paying the creditor the current market value of the collateral. Exempting the property means the debtor claims the property as exempt to the extent allowed by law. In this case, the debtor’s equity ($6,000) exceeds both the federal ($3,000) and West Virginia state ($5,000) motor vehicle exemptions. Therefore, the debtor cannot exempt the entire truck. To keep the truck, the debtor must either reaffirm the debt or redeem the truck. Reaffirmation would require the debtor to continue making payments on the $12,000 loan. Redemption would require the debtor to pay the creditor $18,000 (the current market value of the truck) or, more commonly, pay the secured creditor the amount of the secured claim, $12,000, and surrender the truck to the creditor or negotiate a new arrangement. Given the debtor’s equity, the most straightforward way to keep the truck without losing it to the trustee for liquidation is to reaffirm the debt, assuming the court approves the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c). The debtor’s ability to reaffirm depends on their ability to make the payments and the court’s approval. If the debtor cannot reaffirm or redeem, the trustee would likely sell the truck, pay off the secured creditor ($12,000), and distribute the remaining equity ($6,000) to other creditors after deducting administrative expenses, with any remaining portion of the equity up to the exemption limit ($5,000 under state law) being preserved for the debtor. However, the question asks how the debtor can retain the truck. Retaining the truck typically involves reaffirmation or redemption. Since the equity exceeds the exemption, the debtor must address the secured debt directly. Reaffirmation is a common method for retaining secured property when the debtor’s equity exceeds the available exemption.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the concept of “disposable income” is central to Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings. The calculation of disposable income under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) involves a multi-step process. Initially, the debtor’s current monthly income (CMI) is determined. This CMI is then compared to the median income for a family of the same size in West Virginia. If the debtor’s CMI is less than the state median, the calculation proceeds using specific allowed expenses as defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines, adjusted for West Virginia’s cost of living and specific state laws. If the debtor’s CMI exceeds the state median, a “means test” calculation is applied, which involves deducting specific allowed expenses for secured debts, priority debts, and certain non-discretionary living expenses, including a national median expense for housing and utilities, and state-specific median expenses for food, clothing, and other items, as well as transportation costs. The result of subtracting these allowed expenses from the CMI is the disposable income. For a Chapter 13 debtor in West Virginia whose CMI exceeds the state median, the calculation would involve subtracting allowed secured debt payments, allowed priority unsecured debt payments, and the sum of (a) the applicable monthly expense amounts for a debtor in West Virginia as determined by the means test standards, and (b) any additional necessary expenses not otherwise accounted for, from their current monthly income. The resulting figure represents the disposable income available for distribution to unsecured creditors over the life of the Chapter 13 plan. The question requires identifying the specific statutory framework that governs this calculation for debtors in West Virginia.

The determination of whether a debtor in West Virginia can exempt a vehicle used for essential transportation involves assessing the value of the vehicle against the state’s exemption limits and the nature of its use. West Virginia Code §38-10-4(a) provides an exemption for a motor vehicle to the extent of the debtor’s equity in the vehicle, up to a maximum of \$3,600. However, West Virginia Code §38-10-4(b) further allows a debtor to exempt an additional amount for a motor vehicle if it is necessary for the debtor to travel to and from the debtor’s regular place of employment. This additional exemption is capped at \$1,200. Therefore, the total exemption for a motor vehicle that is essential for employment travel is the sum of the general motor vehicle exemption and the additional employment-related exemption. If the debtor’s equity in the vehicle exceeds the combined exemption limit, the excess equity may be subject to liquidation by the trustee, provided the debtor cannot pay the trustee the amount of the excess equity. In this scenario, the debtor’s equity of \$4,500 in the vehicle exceeds the combined exemption of \$3,600 + \$1,200 = \$4,800. The debtor’s equity is within the total possible exemption. Therefore, the entire \$4,500 equity is exempt.

The scenario involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in West Virginia. The debtor, a resident of West Virginia, has a homestead exemption. West Virginia allows debtors to exempt their homestead up to a certain value. The Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S. Code § 522, allows debtors to exempt certain property. For real property used as a residence, the debtor can choose between federal exemptions or state-specific exemptions, if the state has opted out of the federal exemptions. West Virginia has opted out of the federal exemptions and provides its own set of exemptions. The West Virginia Code § 38-10-4(a) establishes the homestead exemption for real property occupied by the debtor as a principal residence. This exemption is currently set at $35,000. The debtor in this case claims a homestead exemption of $35,000. The property’s equity is $40,000. Since the claimed exemption amount ($35,000) is less than or equal to the equity in the property ($40,000), the entire equity is protected by the exemption. Therefore, the trustee cannot liquidate the property to satisfy creditors because the debtor has claimed the full available homestead exemption under West Virginia law, and the equity does not exceed this limit. The trustee’s ability to sell non-exempt property is limited by the exemptions available to the debtor under state law, as West Virginia has opted out of the federal exemption scheme.

In West Virginia, the concept of “exempt property” allows debtors to retain certain assets when filing for bankruptcy. West Virginia law permits debtors to claim exemptions under either federal law or state law, but not both. The West Virginia Code § 38-10-3 specifically outlines the state exemptions. One of these state exemptions pertains to household furnishings, appliances, books, musical instruments, and clothing, with a limit on the total value of these items. For a married couple filing jointly, the exemption amount is doubled. Therefore, if the statutory limit for an individual debtor is \$5,000 for these categories of personal property, a married couple filing jointly would be entitled to a total exemption of \$10,000 for these specific items, assuming they jointly own and use the property. This doubling is a crucial aspect for married couples seeking to protect their essential household goods from liquidation in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The purpose is to allow families to maintain a basic standard of living post-bankruptcy. It’s important to note that other specific exemptions, such as for vehicles or homesteads, have their own distinct limits and conditions under West Virginia law.

The question concerns the application of West Virginia’s specific exemption laws within the context of a federal bankruptcy proceeding. In West Virginia, debtors have the option to utilize either the federal exemptions or the state-specific exemptions, as permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). The state of West Virginia has opted out of the federal exemption scheme, meaning debtors residing in West Virginia must generally use the exemptions provided by West Virginia law, unless they choose to opt into the federal exemptions. However, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) introduced “non-bankruptcy exemptions” or “federal non-bankruptcy exemptions” which are available to all debtors regardless of state law, provided they have not used state exemptions. These federal non-bankruptcy exemptions include items like social security benefits, unemployment compensation, and veteran’s benefits. The scenario involves a debtor in West Virginia who has accumulated significant equity in their homestead and possesses a substantial amount of personal property. The debtor’s primary concern is maximizing the value of assets they can retain post-bankruptcy. West Virginia Code § 38-10-4 provides a homestead exemption. For married couples, the exemption is $7,500. For single individuals, it is $3,500. The state also provides exemptions for personal property, such as household goods and furnishings, up to $3,000, and for motor vehicles up to $2,000. In this case, the debtor is a single individual residing in West Virginia. The homestead equity is $60,000. The personal property equity is $15,000. The debtor is attempting to shield as much of this as possible. First, let’s consider the homestead exemption. As a single individual in West Virginia, the debtor is entitled to a homestead exemption of $3,500. This means that out of the $60,000 equity, $3,500 is protected. The remaining \( \$60,000 – \$3,500 = \$56,500 \) is potentially available to the bankruptcy estate. Next, we consider the personal property. West Virginia Code § 38-10-3 allows an exemption for household goods and furnishings up to $3,000 and motor vehicles up to $2,000. The question states “personal property equity” of $15,000, which is a broad category. Assuming this $15,000 is comprised of household goods and furnishings and potentially a motor vehicle, the maximum exemption available for these categories would be the sum of the specific limits. If the $15,000 includes both household goods and a vehicle, the debtor can claim up to $3,000 for household goods and $2,000 for a vehicle, totaling $5,000 in personal property exemptions. Therefore, \( \$15,000 – \$5,000 = \$10,000 \) of this personal property equity is potentially available to the bankruptcy estate. The question asks about the maximum amount of equity the debtor can protect. This is the sum of the homestead exemption and the personal property exemptions. Total protected equity = Homestead exemption + Personal property exemptions Total protected equity = $3,500 + $5,000 = $8,500. The debtor is using West Virginia state exemptions. The total amount of equity the debtor can protect under West Virginia law in this scenario is $8,500.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the determination of “disposable income” for Chapter 13 bankruptcy filers in West Virginia, specifically concerning the impact of certain expenses on the calculation. The “means test,” as codified in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2), requires debtors to calculate their disposable income by subtracting from their current monthly income (CMI) the amounts that are reasonably necessary for the maintenance or support of the debtor and any dependent. This includes payments made under a secured or unsecured debt obligation that is **due and payable** at the time of filing the petition. In West Virginia, as elsewhere, this principle is applied. The debtor’s CMI is \( \$5,000 \) per month. The debtor has a mortgage payment of \( \$1,500 \) and a car loan payment of \( \$400 \). Both are secured debts. The mortgage is current. The car loan, however, has missed payments and is currently \( \$1,200 \) in arrears. The question asks about the amount that can be deducted from CMI when calculating disposable income. According to the Bankruptcy Code, only payments that are due and payable at the time of filing can be deducted. The current mortgage payment of \( \$1,500 \) is due and payable. The past-due portion of the car loan is \( \$1,200 \). While the future car loan payments of \( \$400 \) per month are part of the secured debt that can be addressed in a Chapter 13 plan, the arrears themselves represent a debt that is due and payable. Therefore, the total amount that can be considered as payments due and payable at the time of filing, which can be deducted from CMI for the purpose of calculating disposable income, includes the current mortgage payment and the car loan arrears. Thus, the deduction is \( \$1,500 \) (mortgage) + \( \$1,200 \) (car loan arrears) = \( \$2,700 \). The remaining disposable income would be \( \$5,000 \) – \( \$2,700 \) = \( \$2,300 \). The question asks for the total amount that can be deducted.

The question concerns the dischargeability of debts in Chapter 7 bankruptcy under West Virginia law, specifically focusing on debts arising from a fiduciary relationship. In bankruptcy, certain debts are deemed non-dischargeable to protect creditors in specific situations. Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which applies in West Virginia, states that a discharge under section 727 will not discharge a debtor from any debt for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny. The key element here is the existence of a “fiduciary capacity.” This term is interpreted by courts to mean an express or technical trust, not a constructive trust arising from a breach of contract or a general fiduciary duty implied in law. For a debt to be non-dischargeable under this provision, the debtor must have been acting in a fiduciary capacity before the alleged defalcation occurred. A simple debtor-creditor relationship, even if it involves a breach of contract or a moral obligation, does not typically create the necessary express trust for this exception to apply. Therefore, a debt arising from a breach of a standard commercial contract, even if the debtor failed to remit payments as agreed, is generally dischargeable in Chapter 7 unless it falls under another non-dischargeability provision. The scenario describes a breach of a supply agreement, where the debtor failed to pay for goods received, which is a contractual obligation. There is no indication of an express trust being created by the agreement or by West Virginia law that would impose a fiduciary duty in this specific context beyond the contractual terms. Consequently, the debt stemming from the unpaid invoices would be dischargeable in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The question revolves around the concept of a homestead exemption in West Virginia bankruptcy proceedings, specifically concerning its application to a primary residence that also has a separate, non-contiguous parcel used for agricultural purposes. West Virginia Code §38-10-4(a) provides a homestead exemption for a debtor’s interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence. The key to this exemption is the “principal residence” designation. While the statute allows for the exemption of the principal residence, it does not automatically extend this exemption to entirely separate and non-contiguous parcels of land, even if they are utilized for agricultural purposes ancillary to the residence. The exemption is tied to the dwelling and the curtilage necessary for its use and enjoyment as a home. A separate parcel, even if farmed by the debtor, would likely be considered a distinct property interest, and its exemption would depend on other applicable exemptions or specific legal arguments that are not generally presumed under the standard homestead provision. Therefore, the homestead exemption in West Virginia, as codified, applies to the principal residence itself, not to a separate, non-contiguous agricultural parcel, regardless of its use.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the determination of whether a debtor can reaffirm a debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case hinges on several factors, primarily related to the debtor’s ability to pay and the nature of the debt. Reaffirmation agreements are governed by Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code. For secured debts, reaffirmation is generally permitted if the debtor agrees to continue making payments on the collateral and the agreement is in the debtor’s best interest and not an undue hardship. For unsecured debts, reaffirmation is typically not permitted unless there is a specific benefit to the debtor, such as maintaining a business relationship, and the court approves it. In this scenario, the debt is secured by a vehicle that the debtor wishes to retain. The debtor has demonstrated consistent post-petition payments and has a viable plan to continue payments under the Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court in West Virginia would assess if reaffirming this debt is in the debtor’s best interest and does not impose an undue hardship, considering the debtor’s overall financial situation and the value of the collateral. Since the debtor is current on payments and intends to keep the vehicle, reaffirmation is a standard procedure for secured debts in Chapter 13, provided the court finds it meets the statutory requirements. The primary consideration is the debtor’s ability to maintain the payments as agreed in the reaffirmation, which is supported by their consistent payment history.

The scenario involves a debtor in West Virginia filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and attempting to exempt certain personal property. West Virginia law, specifically West Virginia Code §38-10-4, governs exemptions. This statute allows a debtor to exempt certain household goods and furnishings, wearing apparel, and tools of the trade. However, the statute also sets limits on the aggregate value of certain exempted items. For household furnishings, the aggregate value limit is \$4,000. Tools of the trade are limited to \$3,000. Wearing apparel is generally not subject to an aggregate value limit, though individual items must be reasonable. The question asks about the maximum exemption for the debtor’s collection of antique firearms, which are considered personal property. While West Virginia Code §38-10-4(a)(1) exempts “wearing apparel, books, and musical instruments,” it does not specifically list antique firearms as a distinct category for exemption. However, §38-10-4(a)(2) exempts “household furnishings, appliances, and furniture,” with an aggregate value limit of \$4,000. The critical aspect here is whether antique firearms, if not considered wearing apparel or tools of the trade, could fall under the broader “household furnishings” category for exemption purposes, or if they are considered non-exempt personal property. Given the specific wording of the statute, antique firearms are not explicitly listed. West Virginia law does not provide a specific exemption for firearms or collectibles like antique firearms that would supersede the general categories. Therefore, if these antique firearms are not considered essential household furnishings, tools of the trade, or wearing apparel, they would likely not be exempt under West Virginia’s specific exemption statutes. The aggregate limit for household furnishings is \$4,000. If the antique firearms were deemed household furnishings, and their value, when combined with other household furnishings, exceeded this \$4,000 limit, only \$4,000 would be exempt. However, the more precise interpretation based on the absence of a specific firearm exemption and the categorization of other items is that they are not automatically included in the general categories. Without a specific statutory provision or a judicial interpretation that places antique firearms within the scope of “household furnishings” or another exempt category in West Virginia, they are generally considered non-exempt personal property in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Thus, the maximum exemption for the antique firearms, if they are not otherwise covered by a specific exemption or a broad interpretation of household furnishings, would be \$0.

The scenario presented involves a debtor in West Virginia filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The debtor’s primary asset is a home with a market value of $250,000 and a secured mortgage balance of $180,000. The debtor also has a second mortgage with a balance of $40,000. The debtor’s income is sufficient to propose a feasible Chapter 13 plan. The key legal principle to consider is the treatment of secured claims in Chapter 13, particularly the concept of “cramdown” under 11 U.S. Code § 1325(a)(5)(B). This provision allows a debtor to keep secured property by paying the holder of the secured claim the present value of the collateral. In West Virginia, as in most jurisdictions, the present value is generally determined by the interest rate that would be charged on a similar loan in the state. For the first mortgage, the amount of the secured claim is limited to the value of the collateral, which is $250,000. Since the balance of the first mortgage ($180,000) is less than the value of the home, the entire $180,000 is treated as a secured claim. The debtor must pay this amount, plus interest, over the life of the plan. For the second mortgage, the balance of $40,000 exceeds the equity available in the home after accounting for the first mortgage and the homestead exemption. West Virginia Code § 38-10-4 provides for a homestead exemption of up to $35,000 for property owned by the debtor. Therefore, the equity in the home is $250,000 (value) – $180,000 (first mortgage) = $70,000. After applying the $35,000 homestead exemption, the remaining equity available to creditors is $70,000 – $35,000 = $35,000. Since the second mortgage balance of $40,000 is greater than the available non-exempt equity of $35,000, the second mortgage is bifurcated into a secured portion and an unsecured portion. The secured portion of the second mortgage is limited to the available non-exempt equity, which is $35,000. This secured portion must be paid in full, with interest, over the life of the plan. The remaining $5,000 ($40,000 – $35,000) of the second mortgage is treated as an unsecured claim and will be paid to the extent funds are available in the plan after all secured claims and priority claims are satisfied. The question asks about the amount of the secured portion of the second mortgage that must be paid to the lender. This is the amount of the non-exempt equity available to secure that debt. The calculation for the secured portion of the second mortgage is as follows: Home Value = $250,000 First Mortgage Balance = $180,000 Available Equity = Home Value – First Mortgage Balance = $250,000 – $180,000 = $70,000 West Virginia Homestead Exemption = $35,000 Non-Exempt Equity = Available Equity – Homestead Exemption = $70,000 – $35,000 = $35,000 Second Mortgage Balance = $40,000 Secured Portion of Second Mortgage = Minimum of (Second Mortgage Balance, Non-Exempt Equity) = Minimum of ($40,000, $35,000) = $35,000 Therefore, the secured portion of the second mortgage that must be paid to the lender is $35,000.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the determination of which property is exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy proceeding is governed by both federal and state exemption laws. A debtor can elect to use either the federal bankruptcy exemptions or the exemptions provided by West Virginia law. However, West Virginia has opted out of the federal exemption scheme, meaning that debtors residing in West Virginia must use the state’s exemption laws. The specific exemptions available in West Virginia are outlined in the West Virginia Code. These exemptions typically cover essential personal property, a homestead, and certain types of income or future interests. For instance, West Virginia Code § 38-10-4 provides for various exemptions, including a homestead exemption, which protects a certain amount of equity in a primary residence. Other exemptions might cover tools of the trade, motor vehicles up to a certain value, and a portion of wages. The question asks about the availability of a specific exemption for a debtor residing in West Virginia who wishes to protect their primary residence. Since West Virginia has opted out of federal exemptions, only West Virginia’s statutory exemptions are relevant. The West Virginia Code § 38-10-4 specifically addresses homestead exemptions. This section, along with other related provisions in Chapter 38, Article 10 of the West Virginia Code, delineates the scope and limitations of these protections. The critical factor is that the debtor must be a resident of West Virginia and the property in question must be their principal dwelling. The amount of equity protected is also a key component of the exemption, and this amount is subject to statutory limits. The question tests the understanding that West Virginia’s opt-out status mandates the application of state-specific exemption laws, particularly concerning real property like a homestead. The correct answer reflects the existence and applicability of West Virginia’s homestead exemption as defined by its statutes.

The scenario involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in West Virginia. A key aspect of Chapter 7 is the liquidation of non-exempt assets to pay creditors. West Virginia law, like federal law, allows debtors to claim certain property as exempt. The question hinges on understanding which types of property are typically considered non-exempt and thus available for liquidation by the trustee. In most jurisdictions, including West Virginia, personal effects beyond a certain value, luxury items, or assets not specifically listed as exempt under state or federal law are subject to liquidation. Specifically, a collection of rare antique firearms, while potentially having sentimental value, does not fall under common exemptions for essential household goods, tools of the trade, or personal wearing apparel. Therefore, the bankruptcy trustee in West Virginia would likely be able to seize and sell these firearms to distribute the proceeds to creditors. The relevant exemptions are found within the West Virginia Code, particularly concerning personal property, and are often interpreted in conjunction with federal exemptions if the debtor opts for the federal scheme. However, without specific statutory language in West Virginia exempting such a collection, it remains available for liquidation.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the determination of whether a debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy hinges on specific provisions within the Bankruptcy Code, particularly Section 523. For a debt to be considered nondischargeable under the exception for debts for death or personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft while intoxicated, the creditor must prove specific elements. This exception, codified in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9), requires a showing that the debtor was operating the vehicle, boat, or aircraft, that the operation resulted in death or personal injury, and crucially, that the debtor was intoxicated at the time of operation. Intoxication, for the purposes of this section, is generally defined by the applicable state law regarding driving under the influence. In West Virginia, this means the debtor’s blood alcohol content (BAC) met or exceeded the legal limit for driving while intoxicated, which is established by state statute. Therefore, if the creditor can demonstrate that Mr. Abernathy’s operation of his vehicle in West Virginia, which led to Ms. Gable’s personal injury, occurred while his BAC was at or above the state’s legal limit for DUI, the debt would be presumed nondischargeable under this specific exception. The burden of proof rests with the creditor to establish these facts.

In West Virginia, as in other states, the determination of whether a debtor qualifies for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, often referred to as liquidation bankruptcy, hinges on a means test. This test, codified in Section 707(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, aims to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy system by individuals who have the ability to repay their debts through a Chapter 13 repayment plan. The means test primarily examines the debtor’s income in relation to the median income for a household of similar size in West Virginia. If the debtor’s income exceeds the applicable median, further calculations involving disposable income are required. Specifically, the debtor’s income is compared to the state median income for a household of the same size. If the debtor’s current monthly income is less than the median income for West Virginia, they generally pass the first hurdle of the means test and may proceed with a Chapter 7 filing. If their income is above the median, the court then looks at disposable income, calculated by subtracting certain allowed expenses from gross income. A presumption of abuse arises if disposable income over a five-year period exceeds a certain threshold, typically \( \$7,475 \) for filings after April 1, 2016, or 25% of non-priority unsecured debt, whichever is greater. However, for the purpose of this question, the focus is on the initial income comparison. Given that the median family income for a family of four in West Virginia for the relevant period was \( \$60,000 \), and Mr. Abernathy’s household income is \( \$55,000 \), his income is below the state median for a family of his size. Therefore, he does not fail the initial income prong of the means test.

The scenario involves a debtor in West Virginia seeking to reaffirm a secured debt for a vehicle. Reaffirmation agreements are governed by Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code. For consumer debts secured by a dwelling, the debtor must typically demonstrate that they can make the payments and that reaffirming the debt is in their best interest or will not impose an undue hardship. In West Virginia, as in other states, the debtor’s ability to pay and the benefit of retaining the property are paramount. The court must approve the agreement unless it is made by an attorney on behalf of the debtor. If the debtor is not represented by an attorney, the court must hold a hearing to ensure the debtor understands the agreement and its consequences. The question tests the understanding of the conditions under which a reaffirmation agreement for a vehicle, a consumer debt, would be approved by a West Virginia bankruptcy court. The debtor must demonstrate the ability to make the payments and that reaffirming the debt is in their best interest or will not cause undue hardship. Without an attorney, a court hearing is mandatory. The debtor’s current unemployment and lack of demonstrable income make it highly unlikely that they can meet the “ability to pay” standard. Therefore, the court would likely deny the reaffirmation.

The scenario involves a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in West Virginia where the debtor proposes a plan to pay creditors over five years. A key element is the treatment of secured claims. The debtor’s primary residence is encumbered by a mortgage from Mountain State Bank for $150,000, and the property’s current market value is $130,000. In West Virginia, as in most jurisdictions under federal bankruptcy law, the treatment of a secured claim in a Chapter 13 plan when the collateral’s value is less than the claim amount is governed by the “strip-down” provisions of Section 1325(a)(5)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. This section requires that the plan provide for the secured creditor to receive property having a value, as of the effective date of the plan, not less than the allowed amount of such secured claim. However, if the claim is secured only by a security interest in the debtor’s principal residence, the “hanging paragraph” following Section 1325(a)(5)(B) (now codified at 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)) generally prohibits a “strip-down” of the principal residence mortgage to the property’s value, except in specific circumstances not present here (like a second mortgage that is wholly unsecured). Therefore, the secured claim of Mountain State Bank is generally not subject to a reduction in its principal amount to the property’s current market value. The debtor must pay the full amount of the secured claim, $150,000, plus interest, through the plan. The unsecured portion of the debt, which is $20,000 ($150,000 – $130,000), would be treated as an unsecured claim. The question asks about the secured portion of Mountain State Bank’s claim that must be paid through the plan. Based on the anti-modification protection for primary residences, the secured portion is the full amount of the claim.

The scenario involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in West Virginia. The debtor, a coal miner, has a non-exempt vehicle valued at $15,000. The debtor owes $12,000 on the vehicle loan. In a Chapter 7 case, debtors can choose between federal or state exemptions. West Virginia allows debtors to use federal exemptions. The federal exemption for a motor vehicle is currently $4,650. The debtor wishes to keep the vehicle. To do so, the debtor must pay the secured creditor the amount owed on the loan or the value of the collateral, whichever is less, to retain the collateral. Alternatively, the debtor can reaffirm the debt, which essentially means agreeing to continue making payments under the original loan terms, thereby keeping the collateral. However, reaffirmation requires court approval and a showing that it does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor or their dependents and is in the debtor’s best interest. In this case, the debtor’s equity in the vehicle is $15,000 (value) – $12,000 (loan balance) = $3,000. This equity is below the federal exemption amount of $4,650. Therefore, the debtor can exempt the entire equity in the vehicle. To retain the vehicle, the debtor must either pay the secured creditor the full loan balance of $12,000 or reaffirm the debt. Reaffirming the debt is the most common method to keep a vehicle when the equity is fully exempt or the debtor intends to continue payments. The question asks about the debtor’s ability to retain the vehicle. The debtor can retain the vehicle by paying off the secured loan or by reaffirming the debt. Since the equity is fully exempt, reaffirmation is a viable path, assuming court approval. The correct option reflects this possibility.