In Re Oot

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding two auto payments of $1,560.00 per month was an expenditure for luxury goods
• this Court held that a $4,200.00 per month allocation housing was an ‘abuse’ for purposes of § 707(b)(3)(B)
• attempt by a debtor to reaffirm on a large amount of unsecured debt is especially problematic under BAPCPA
• attempt by a debtor to reaffirm on a large amount of unsecured debt is especially problematic under BAPCPA
• “Although [Zick was] decided under subsection (a) of § 707, this decision’s tenets have significant relevance in any “bad faith” analysis under § 707(b)”
• court considered debtors’ relatively high level of income in dismissing case for abuse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).