11 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101(24) measures whether a debtor has regular income sufficient to make the payments required by the proposed Chapter 13 plan.

Tenney v. Terry (In Re Terry) · filed 1980-02-22(24)

This section of the Code only makes sense if the question is: Does the debtor have sufficiently stable and regular income to make the payments called for in the plan that is proposed? The debtors’ income meets this test and, therefore, the debtor is eligible for relief under Chapter 13 insofar as 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) is concerned.

Section 101(24) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income enables payments under a Chapter 13 plan; the court construed that definition to require payments to unsecured creditors.

In Re Seman · filed 1980-06-06(24)

An “individual with regular income” is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(24) to mean an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this title . . ”. [Emphasis added] Thus, payments must be made as a prerequisite for relief.

Section 101(24) requires an individual to have income sufficient to make Chapter 13 payments.

In Re Burns · filed 1980-09-30(24)

In order to meet the definition in § 101(24), individuals must have income sufficient to make payments under Chapter 13.

Section 101(24) includes social security recipients whose benefits are stable and regular enough to fund Chapter 13 plan payments within the definition of an individual with regular income.

In Re Buren · filed 1980-10-10(24)

An “individual with regular income” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code is an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under [a Chapter 13] plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(24). Both the House and Senate committee reports analyzed this provision as applying to social security recipients.

An individual has regular income only if it is sufficiently stable and regular to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Wilhelm · filed 1980-11-12(24)

11 U.S.C. § 101(24) defines an “individual with regular income” as an individual “whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this Title.” ... Mr. and Mrs. Wilhelm do not qualify for relief under Chapter 13 because they cannot satisfy the requirements of § 109(e). They lack an income which is sufficiently stable and regular to enable them to make payments under their plan.

Section 101(24) includes a farmer with annual farming income as an individual with regular income even when future income cannot be predicted with certainty.

In Re Hines · filed 1980-11-26(24)

This Bankruptcy Court holds that a farmer qualifies as an individual with regular income where the farmer has annual income from the farming business even though the future annual income is not readily ascertainable with any degree of certainty.

A debtor remains eligible as an individual with regular income when a creditor fails to prove that the debtor lacks a regular source of income.

In Re Ratmansky · filed 1980-12-23(24)

Section 101(24) of the Code defines an “ ‘individual with regular income’ as an individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(24). ... Absent that testimony, there is no evidence before us that the debtor is not in fact an individual with a regular source of income.

Section 101(24) includes a debtor who draws unemployment compensation after losing a job when the debtor has income sufficiently stable and regular to make payments.

Jandel v. Precision Colors, Inc. (In Re Jandel) · filed 1981-01-30(24)

It is summarily noted that the debtor was an “individual with regular income” sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payment. He was then an employee of the corporation; and, since displacement, draws unemployment compensation as an employee. 11 U.S.C. § 101(24).

Section 101(24) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to fund Chapter 13 payments; income too low to make regular payments to unsecured creditors does not qualify.

In Re Dant · filed 1981-02-10(24)

Sections 109(e) and 101(24) set forth the criteria to qualify as a Chapter 13 debt- or. ... If a debtor cannot make payments (or only de minimus payments) to his unsecured creditors for the reason that his income is insufficient to provide a regular payment to fund a plan, the debtor is not eligible for Chapter 13 relief under § 109(e), and any proposed plan is unconfirmable as a violation of § 1325(a)(1).

Section 101(24) allows a Chapter 13 debtor to fund a plan with regular, stable income from any source, not only wages.

Matter of Scher · filed 1981-06-16(24)

At the outset, in 11 U.S.C. § 101(24), an “individual with regular income” otherwise eligible for Chapter 13 relief under the broadened eligibility requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) may fund his plan with regular and stable income from any source, not just his wages, as under Chapter XIII of the 1898 Act.

Section 101(24) requires income stable and regular enough to support Chapter 13 plan payments; home equity to be liquidated at the end of the plan does not qualify.

Georgia Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 1981-11-02(24)

The liquidation of the admitted equity in the residence at the end of the thirty-six (36) month period of the plan cannot supply the regular and stable income necessary to satisfy Sections 109 and 101(24) and the debtor eligibility requirements to file and sustain a Chapter 13 petition and to satisfy the confirmation requirement of Section 1325(a)(6).

Section 101(24) includes regular child support payments within the definition of regular income for Chapter 13 eligibility.

In Re Taylor · filed 1981-12-02(24)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that child support payments received by the debtor constitute regular income under 11 U.S.C. § 101(24), thereby allowing this court to take jurisdiction in this case and the debtor’s plan is confirmed as conforming in all other respects to the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(24) includes people whose only income is pension benefits as individuals with regular income eligible for Chapter 13.

In Re Wood · filed 1982-09-15(24)

That Congress intended that individuals whose only source of income is pension benefits should be able to participate in a Chapter 13 plan is made abundantly clear by the legislative history to section 101(24).

Section 101(24) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is stable enough to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Gavia · filed 1982-09-24(24)

An individual with regular income is defined as “one whose income is sufficiently stable to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(24). All debtors stated that they lacked regular income sufficient to enable them to make payments under a plan. As such, they were ineligible for Chapter 13 relief.

Section 101(24) excludes voluntary contributions from parents or other relatives as a basis for qualifying as an individual with regular income.

In Re McGowan · filed 1982-09-28(24)

This expansion is not unlimited however and, for purposes of the present decision, should not include individuals dependent upon voluntary contributions from outside sources such as parents or other relatives.

Section 101(24) defines an individual with regular income by whether the income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments; the court may assess that prospectively.

In Re Troyer · filed 1982-11-12(24)

This determination as to whether a debtor filing under Chapter 13 is an “individual with regular income” is not limited to the date that the petition was filed but may also be a prospective determination.

Section 101(24) includes fluctuating income if it is sufficiently regular and substantial to enable Chapter 13 plan payments.

Margraf v. Oliver (In Re Oliver) · filed 1983-02-24(24)

In this case, Debtors’ income, though subject to fluctuation, appears sufficiently regular and substantial “to enable [Debtors] to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(24).

An individual with regular income may qualify for Chapter 13 while acting as a trustee; the income need not come from the trust.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Wynn · filed 1983-05-06(24)

Plaintiff’s argument that a trustee’s income must be derived from the trust in order to file under Chapter 13 must fail. There is no limitation in the statute as to the source or type of income which an individual must have in order to file under Chapter 13 of the Code.

Section 101(24) includes debtors whose combined unemployment compensation and wages are regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re McMonagle · filed 1983-06-03(24)

Therefore, applying the definition of an individual with regular income to the facts of this case, the Court finds that the Debtors qualify as individuals with regular income.

Section 101(24)’s “regular income” for Chapter 13 eligibility must be part of the bankruptcy estate and subject to the court’s and trustee’s control.

In Re Baxter · filed 1983-11-18(24)

Though the benefits might be regular income in the general sense, the “regular income” that makes a debtor eligible for Chapter 13 must be part of the bankruptcy estate and subject to the court’s and the trustee’s control.

Section 101(24) includes social security recipients whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Buren · filed 1984-01-23(24)

Rather, it leaves unimpaired Congress' desire to open Chapter 13 to social security recipients whose income is "sufficiently stable and regular" to enable them to make regular payments.

Section 101(24) includes social security recipients whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

Hildebrand v. Social Security Administration · filed 1984-01-23(24)

Rather, it leaves unimpaired Congress’ desire to open Chapter 13 to social security recipients whose income is “sufficiently stable and regular” to enable them to make regular payments.

Section 101(27) concerns eligibility for Chapter 13; a debtor with regular income need not actually make periodic payments under the plan.

In Re Smith · filed 1984-12-05(27)

Section 101(27) and 109(e) have to do with eligibility to file a Chapter 13 petition, not with what must or may be included in a Chapter 13 plan. Thus, the Court concludes that, at least in the peculiar circumstances of this case, so long as the Debtor has regular income from which he could make periodic payments, it is not absolutely essential that his plan provide for actually making periodic payments.

Section 101(27) permits a farmer whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to fund a Chapter 13 plan with annual payments.

In Re Fiegi · filed 1986-07-01(27)

11 U.S.C. § 101(27) defines an individual with regular income to mean an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker;” ... Accordingly, this court concludes that a Chapter 13 plan may be funded with annual, as opposed to monthly payments particularly where, as in this case, the majority of the creditors have contracted to receive annual payments from the debtor.

Section 101(29) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to fund a Chapter 13 plan; hopes of future income do not suffice.

In Re Sassower · filed 1987-08-31(29)

The debtor in this case has not produced any credible evidence to form a factual basis for concluding that the debtor has a regular and stable source of income within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(e) and 101(29).

Section 101(24) includes debtors with regular employment who make monthly plan payments, even when their plans also depend on selling or refinancing property.

In Re Hogue · filed 1987-10-08(24)

Accordingly, it is clear that each of the debtors has a regular source of income within the meaning of § 101(24) and, hence, meets the eligibility requirements of § 109(e) of the Code.

Section 101(29) includes regular compensation for bookkeeping services within the definition of an individual with regular income when that income is sufficient to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Ellenburg · filed 1988-06-23(29)

The phrase “individual with regular income” used in § 109(e) is defined in § 101(29) as an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title.” ... The Court finds here that the debtor’s receipt of $500.00 per month for providing bookkeeping services to her husband and his business constitutes sufficient regular income as contemplated under the Bankruptcy Code and that the debtor is eligible for relief under Chapter 13.

Section 101(29) includes a regular monthly research stipend as income for Chapter 13 eligibility.

In Re Gregory A. Lemaire, Debtor. Paul Handeen v. Lemaire · filed 1989-07-05(29)

We agree with the district court that refusing to consider a regular monthly stipend as income would impose an unduly restrictive interpretation on the term in light of the broad language of the statute and our reading of it in Estus.

Section 101(29) includes regular contributions from a family member as stable and regular income for Chapter 13 eligibility when the payments have an established history.

Rowe v. Conners (In Re Rowe) · filed 1990-02-08(29)

We therefore conclude that the Debtor's receipt of $200 from her son is an acceptable source of “stable and regular” income to qualify the Debtor for Chapter 13 relief. We note that the five-year duration of these payments would appear to render them “stable and regular” within the ordinary meaning of those terms.

Section 101(29) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Masterson · filed 1992-06-17(29)

The Code, at 11 U.S.C. § 101(29), defines an individual with “regular income” as [an] individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker. The Debtor testified that she presently has an earned income of $2000 a month and projects that it will increase to meet her expenses within a few months. ... For the reasons given, the Debtor has fulfilled the Chapter 13 requirements and is eligible to file under that Chapter.

Section 101(30) requires income that is reasonably predictable, dependable, and sufficient to fund chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Ristic · filed 1992-07-06(30)

In order for income to be “sufficiently stable and regular,” it must be an income stream that is to a substantial degree reliable and certain in amount and sufficient to fund payments for the term of the plan. It must, therefore, be reasonably predictable and dependable.

Section 101(30) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments; income contingent on unlikely developments does not qualify.

In Re Jones · filed 1994-09-01(30)

The requirement that the income of the debtor be “sufficiently stable and regular” to enable the debtor to make payments under the chapter 13 plan is not met by mere allegations that there is an income potential which is contingent upon developments that appear unlikely based on the evidence before the Court.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is stable and regular enough to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Griggs · filed 1994-09-15(30)

This Court finds that an individual who works as a “construction supervisor” with a net monthly income of $1,376.22 is an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13.”

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Crowder · filed 1995-03-22(30)

An individual with regular income is one “whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). ... Since the debtor has no regular and stable source of income, she is ineligible for Chapter 13 relief.

Section 101(30) requires an individual seeking Chapter 13 relief to have income sufficiently stable and regular to make plan payments.

National School Bus, Inc. v. Carignan · filed 1996-01-12(30)

The debtor must show that she is an “individual with regular income ... sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30); see also, In re Fischel, 103 B.R. 44, 48 (N.D.N.Y.1989) (Referencing 11 U.S.C. § 101(29), now 11 U.S.C. § 101(30)).

Section 101(30) includes a spouse’s contributions as regular income when they are sufficiently stable and regular to fund Chapter 13 plan payments, even if the debtor has no other income.

In Re Antoine · filed 1997-03-31(30)

The Court holds that the Debtor has shown that he has, based on Mrs. Antoine’s contributions, “income that is sufficiently stable and regular” to meet the eligibility requirements imposed by sections 109(e) and 101(30) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(30) does not treat an able-bodied debtor supported solely by voluntary payments from parents as an individual with regular income.

In Re Hanlin · filed 1997-08-07(30)

An able-bodied unmarried debtor whose only source of sustenance is what he can borrow and how much his parents will “gift” to him is not a person with “regular income” under 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(e) and 101(30).

Section 101(30) does not treat gratuitous contributions as regular income when the contributor has not committed to fund the plan and shown an ability to do so.

In Re Jordan · filed 1998-10-16(30)

Absent David’s legally obligating himself, or otherwise affirmatively acting to dedicate a portion of his income for the life of the debtor’s plan, and demonstrating an ability to do so, gratuitous contributions are not sufficiently regular and stable to satisfy § 101(30).

Section 101(30) includes reliable contributions from an unmarried partner as regular income when they are stable enough to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Murphy · filed 1998-10-29(30)

That § 101(30) defines individual with regular income by reference to stability and regularity suggests that the existence of regular income is predominantly a fact question answered by examining the flow of money available to the debtor. Put another way, the Bankruptcy Code does not specifically exclude any source of funding from the regular income calculus; the Code does require that whatever source of income is claimed by a debtor, it must be regular and stable enough to fund a plan.

Section 101(30) includes regular and stable contributions from a relative as income even if the relative has no legal obligation to continue paying.

In Re Baird · filed 1999-01-07(30)

Moreover, simply because there is no legal obligation to continue the payments hardly proves absence of income for § 101(30) purposes. ... The Court therefore concludes that the Trustee’s consistent receipt of the plan payments from Debt- or’s son for the past five months is an acceptable source of “stable and regular” income to render Debtor an “individual with regular income” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).

A nondebtor spouse’s contributions can count as a debtor’s regular income for Chapter 13 eligibility when they are sufficiently regular and stable.

In Re Bottelberghe · filed 2000-10-03(30)

This Court agrees with the conclusion in Sigfrid that it is well-settled that a nondebtor spouse may supplant or supplement a debtor spouse’s income with his own income for purposes of funding the debtor spouse’s Chapter 13 plan, as long as the nondebtor spouse’s income is demonstrated to be sufficiently regular and stable.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income by whether the debtor can make the required Chapter 13 plan payments; the court may assess that ability at confirmation.

In Re Goodrich · filed 2000-12-13(30)

This Court has determined that it is not limited to the date of the filing of the petition to determine whether a debtor has regular income but may view the circumstances prospectively, such as at the time of confirmation.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Nosker · filed 2001-06-18(30)

An “individual with regular income” is defined as an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments ... under a plan under chapter 13 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). ... Thus, the Debtor has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the Second Revised Plan “complies with this chapter [i.e., §§ 1322(a)(2) and 1325(b)(1)(B) ] and the other provisions of this title [i.e., § 109(e) ].”

Section 101(30) generally excludes gratuitous family contributions from regular income, though a legal obligation or a history of payments may support an exception.

In Re Porter · filed 2002-04-22(30)

As a general proposition, gratuitous payments to a debtor by his family members do not constitute regular income for Chapter 13 purposes, although exceptions exist, particularly where the contribution comes from a non-debtor spouse, or is made pursuant to some contractual or legal obligation, or where there is evidence of regular contributions having been made in the past.

Section 101(19) does not require a Chapter 12 plan to be funded primarily or substantially from farming operations.

In Re Sorrell · filed 2002-11-06(19)

With this overlay of intent, coupled with the plain reading and meaning of § 101(19), the Court cannot conclude that Congress intended that Chapter 12 plans must be primarily or substantially funded from farming operations.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

Gulley v. DePaola · filed 2003-11-05(30)

An “individual with regular income” means an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). ... Upon an independent review of the entire record, the court concludes that the bankruptcy court was not clearly erroneous in its determination that Gulley does not have sufficiently stable and regular income which would enable her to make payments under her proposed Chapter 13 plan.

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments, but does not require income alone to fund the entire plan.

In Re Gillis · filed 2005-10-14(30)

Subsection 109(e), in conjunction with the definition in § 101(30), requires that a Chapter 13 debt- or have income that is sufficiently stable and regular to enable the individual to make payments under a plan. ... The Court is satisfied that the requirement of regular income in § 109(e) is not a mandate that the debtor’s income be sufficient in amount, by itself, to fully fund the plan (or any specific portion then of).

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Kollar · filed 2006-10-05(30)

An “individual with regular income” is an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). The Debtor’s rental and independent contractor income is not sufficiently stable and regular. The income does not constitute regular income pursuant to § 101(30).

Section 101(30) permits a debtor to qualify as an individual with regular income when a nonfiling spouse’s contributions are stable and regular enough to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

Singer Asset Finance Co. v. Mullins (In Re Mullins) · filed 2007-02-12(30)

In this case, the record supports the Debtor’s assertion that, based on the contributions of the non-filing husband, she has income that is sufficiently “stable and regular” to meet the eligibility requirements imposed by Sections 109(e) and 101(30) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 payments, excluding stockbrokers and commodity brokers.

In Re Mercado · filed 2007-09-24(30)

Section 101(30) of BAPCPA provides: [An] ‘individual with regular income’ means [an] individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker. ... The Court agrees with the arguments set forth by the Mercado’s, and finds that they have “regular income,” within the meaning of § 109(e) of BAPC-PA.

Section 101(30) requires income sufficient to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan; stable income alone does not satisfy that definition.

In Re Ellis · filed 2008-06-10(30)

Although the Debtor has stable and regular income, she has insufficient income to enable her “to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13.”

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments; rental and business income can satisfy that definition.

In Re Bassett · filed 2009-02-26(30)

Based on Keith’s uncontroverted testimony and Debtors’ Schedule I, the Court finds that Chase’s objection based on § 109(e) is without merit and that the Debtors are eligible under § 109(e) and § 101(30) as individuals with regular income.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re Nealen · filed 2009-07-09(30)

An individual with “regular income” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as meaning an individual “whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). ... Sporadic income in the nature of undocumented and occasional sales of less than a dozen farm animals does not constitute sufficiently stable and regular income for purposes of Chapter 13.

Section 101(30) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to make chapter 13 plan payments.

Pellegrino v. Boyajian (Pellegrino) · filed 2010-02-09(30)

Section 101(30) thus contemplates that chapter 13 debtors will have disposable income from which to make plan payments.

An individual lacks regular income under § 101(30) when a proposed Chapter 13 plan depends on contributions from a spouse who must commit all disposable income to the spouse’s own plan.

In Re Lovell · filed 2011-03-24(30)

However, because the debtor husband is now obligated to pay all of his disposable income into his own chapter 13 plan, he cannot use a portion of his income to pay his wife’s creditors by funding her plan. The Court therefore concludes that Deborah is not an individual with regular income.

Section 101(30) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to fund a Chapter 13 plan; discretionary support from a fiancée without evidence of a continuing commitment does not qualify.

In re Loomis · filed 2013-02-25(30)

The Court concludes that Loomis is not “an individual with regular income” as that term is defined in § 101(30), and thus is not eligible to be a debtor in a case under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to make payments under a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan, but does not require enough income to fund a specific plan.

Santiago-Monteverde v. Pereira (In re Santiago-Monteverde) · filed 2014-06-27(30)

Once it is determined that the debtor has “sufficiently regular and stable” income to make payments under a hypothetical Chapter 13 plan, the definitional requirement of section 101(30) incorporated in the eligibility requirements of section 109(e) is satisfied. The adequacy of the debtor’s income to fully support a specific plan is not part of the analysis.

An individual with regular income must have income sufficiently stable and regular to make chapter 13 plan payments.

In re Gomery · filed 2015-01-28(30)

The Bankruptcy Code defines an “individual with regular income” as an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). ... Because the Debt- or has no current income, and limited prospects for income in the future, the Court concludes that the Debtor is not eligible to be a debtor under chapter 13.

Third-party contributions can qualify as regular income when evidence shows they are sufficiently stable and regular to fund chapter 13 plan payments.

In re Deutsch · filed 2015-04-20(30)

While more compelling, the contributions by the Debtor’s mother also do not satisfy § 101(30) because they are inadequately supported by evidence of their stable and regular nature.

A lump-sum severance payment can be regular income under § 101(30) if it is sufficiently stable and regular to fund chapter 13 plan payments.

In re Robinson · filed 2015-07-22(30)

The income does not have to be unequivocally stable and regular, only “sufficiently” stable and regular to ensure plan payments can be made.

Section 101(30) covers a debtor with regular income that is stable enough to support Chapter 13 eligibility.

In re Floyd · filed 2015-07-27(30)

She also has regular income that appears to be stable.

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

Culp v. Stanziale (In re Culp) · filed 2016-02-05(30)

Section 101(30) of the Bankruptcy Code defines an “individual with regular income” as an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(30). ... The record shows that Appellants failed to meet their burden to establish regular income.

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to make payments under a chapter 13 plan; unsupported claims of employment do not establish regular income.

Atayde v. Feco (In Re Atayde) · filed 2016-02-17(30)

But, Atayde provided no further evidence, such as pay stubs or bank statements, of regular employment. Based on these facts, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in determining that Atayde did not have a regular income to fund a chapter 13 plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) (only an “individual with regular income” may be a debtor for chapter 13 purposes); 11 U.S.C. § 101(30) (defining an “individual with regular income” as an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker”).

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as someone whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments; a guaranteed bi-weekly draw can satisfy that definition.

In re Brandland · filed 2017-04-19(30)

The term “individual with regular income” means an individual ... “whose income is sufficiently stable and 'regular to enable such individual to make payments” under the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. ... The Court is satisfied that the Debtor has met the regular income requirement for eligibility under Section 109(e) of the Code.

Section 101(30) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.

In re Wood · filed 2019-05-15(30)

Thus, again using the Debtor's own figures and testimony, the Court cannot find that the Debtor has stable and regular income "to make payments under a [Chapter 13] plan."

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.

In re: Neelam Taneja · filed 2019-12-02(30)

Additionally, the debtor must have a “regular income[,]” meaning that her income must be “sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a [Chapter 13 plan.]” 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(30), 109(e); ... Thus, the bankruptcy court properly dismissed Taneja’s petition because she failed to demonstrate a regular income or propose a feasible plan, and the district court properly affirmed that dismissal.

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to fund Chapter 13 plan payments; a one-time gift is not regular monthly income.

Christi Lynn Beauboeuf · filed 2020-03-10(30)

11 U.S.C. § 101(30) provides that “individual with regular income” means individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this Title…” 11 U.S.C. 101(30). ... The Court finds that the proposed gift from the father of the Debtor is not “disposable income” based upon the lack of evidence or “regular monthly income” and that proposed gift may be used by the Debtor to make plan payments remaining under the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan, as modified.

Section 101(30) excludes speculative recoveries from undisclosed lawsuits from the stable and regular income needed to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

Paul Alfred Rosberg · filed 2021-06-21(30)

Speculative judgments in undisclosed lawsuits are not “sufficiently stable and regular” income under § 101(30).

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is stable and regular enough to make Chapter 13 plan payments; Social Security, pension, and disability payments can qualify.

Donald R Johnson and Linda A Johnson · filed 2021-12-15(30)

The Debtors have shown that they are “individuals[s] with regular income” according to Section 101(30).

Section 101(30) permits voluntarily committed IRA withdrawals to count as regular income for Chapter 13 eligibility when the debtor can withdraw without a tax penalty.

John Franklin Frysinger · filed 2022-12-21(30)

For the reasons set forth above, the court holds that Mr. Frysinger’s proposed withdrawals from his IRAs should be treated as income, and that, based on the IRA income, Mr. Frysinger is eligible to be a debtor under chapter 13.

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to fund a Chapter 13 plan; indefinite, as-needed contributions from family do not qualify.

Marc E. Dionne, II · filed 2024-05-17(30)

Contributions, whether gifts or loans, on such indefinite terms could not possibly be “stable and regular.”

Section 101(30)’s definition of an individual with regular income can be satisfied by a family member’s contributions when funds dedicated to the plan are sufficient to make its payments.

George Gordon Strong, III · filed 2024-06-28(30)

The question has been whether his father’s contributions enable Debtor to assert that he has enough “regular income” to qualify for chapter 13, and to make his proposed Plan feasible. Debtor’s evidence of contributions from his father did meet his prima facie burden of proof on these issues.

Section 101(30) requires income sufficiently stable and regular to make payments under a Chapter 13 plan.

Samra Ali as John Doe or Jane Doe · filed 2024-12-26(30)

Here, the Court concludes that Debtor has failed to carry her burden to establish that she is an “individual with regular income” as defined in § 101(30).

Section 101(30) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

Andy Monplaisir and Coleen Monplaisir · filed 2025-07-21(30)

Section 101(30) defines “individual with regular income” as one with an income that is “sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker.” ... Other than an assertion of newfound employment, Andy has not provided any proof of employment, demonstrating a regular and stable income sufficient to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

Section 101(30) requires a Chapter 13 debtor relying on family contributions to establish that the payments are stable and regular.

Mark B. Holtzen · filed 2025-08-12(30)

The debtor did not establish the gratuitous payments were “stable” or “regular”.

Section 101(3) defines an individual with regular income as one whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to make Chapter 13 plan payments.

Lee Moncho · filed 2025-10-22(3)

The admissions in the Debtor’s Schedules establish that he does not have regular income to make the monthly Plan payments necessary to confirm his Chapter 13 plan.

Section 101(30) requires income stable and regular enough to fund plan payments; a spouse’s payment of joint living expenses does not establish the debtor’s regular income without evidence of contributions available for those payments.

Steven Dwayne Duby · filed 2025-12-08(30)

Any contributions she makes for their joint living expenses is not regular income to the Debtor for bankruptcy purposes and do not support a finding of eligibility for Chapter 13.

Section 101(24)'s definition of an individual with regular income can include a person operating a small family business as a sole proprietorship.

Associates Commercial Corp. v. Stevenson (In Re Stevenson) · filed 1982-09-02(24)

However, courts have consistently held as did the Krokos case, that the “mom and pop” store may qualify as an individual with a regular income within the meaning of Sections 101(24) and 109(e) (11 U.S.C. § 101(24) and 11 U.S.C. § 109(e)). ... Applying the foregoing principles to the facts in this case, this Court is convinced that Stevenson’s Trucking, Inc. was nothing more than Dallas Stevenson himself.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes business trusts as corporations; a trust whose purpose is to hold and conserve property rather than conduct business does not qualify.

In Re Treasure Island Land Trust · filed 1980-01-29(8)(A)(v)

The basic distinction between business trusts and nonbusiness trusts is that business trusts are created for the purpose of carrying on some kind of business or commercial activity for profit; the object of a nonbusiness trust is to protect and preserve the trust res. ... Treasure Island Land Trust does not qualify as a business trust within the meaning of Section 101(8)(A)(v).

Section 101(8) includes business trusts in its definition of corporation, but a land trust without an ongoing business does not qualify.

Matter of Cohen · filed 1980-05-06(8)(A)(v)

Also, through Section 101(8) includes “business trust” within the definition of corporation and eliminates the language of Section 1(8) of the Bankruptcy Act which included within the definition of corporation “any business conducted by a trustee or trustees wherein beneficial interest or ownership is evidenced by certificate or other written instrument,” the Court is not persuaded that by this change Congress intended to expand the category of debtors eligible for relief to include land trusts such as the debtor.

Section 101 includes business trusts within the definition of corporations, so a realty trust with transferrable shares may qualify as a Chapter 11 debtor under proper circumstances.

In Re Ponn Realty Trust · filed 1980-05-09(8)(A)(v)

The court concurs with the debtor that, under the proper circumstances, a business trust such as a realty trust with transferrable shares may be a proper debtor under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes business trusts within the definition of corporation, but a land trust that merely holds title and conducts no business for profit is not a business trust.

In Re Old Second National Bank of Aurora · filed 1980-10-20(8)(A)(v)

A ‘business trust,’ is within the Code’s definition of ‘corporation.’ 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)(A)(v). ... The trust is merely a land trust, the primary purpose limited to holding title to real property. The trust does not operate any business or conduct commercial activity for profit.

Section 101 includes business trusts in the definition of corporation, but a private pension trust without business trust features does not qualify.

In Re Cahill · filed 1981-12-07(8)(A)(v)

Section 101(8) defines corporation to include an entity la-belled the “business trust”. ... In this case, the Court is confronted with a private trust which funds a pension plan, which is not a business trust.

Section 101 includes business trusts within the definition of corporation, but an Illinois land trust that merely holds title to real estate does not qualify.

In Re North Shore National Bank of Chicago, Land Trust No. 362 · filed 1982-03-01(8)(A)(v)

The language of the definitional sections supports the conclusion that land trusts were not meant to enjoy the right of re-organizing their debtors. The inclusion of the term trust in the definition of “entity” in 11 U.S.C. § 101(14), ... and its inclusion only when qualified as a “business trust” in ... 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)(A)(v) demonstrate that Congress was aware of the distinction between functioning business entities and mere devices which hold title to real estate.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes a business trust as an entity, but a personal trust does not become a business trust merely by engaging in business activities.

In Re SCR Trust · filed 1982-03-23(8)(A)(v)

In support of the conclusions reached by this Court that this Trust is not eligible as a petitioner in bankruptcy, the Court has reviewed the definitional requirements contained in § 101 of the Bankruptcy Code and notes that nowhere is a personal trust authorized to become a petitioner in a Chapter 11 proceeding. Since this Trust can only be a personal trust under the law which allowed its creation, the engagement in numerous business activities cannot serve to convert it into a business trust which is defined as an entity under 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)(A)(v).

A liquidating trust that winds up a corporation and remains substantially controlled by its beneficiaries can qualify as a business trust.

In Re Tru Block Concrete Products, Inc. · filed 1983-02-15(8)(A)(v)

Further, under the control test, this debtor would be found to be controlled by the beneficiaries to such an extent that it would be a business trust. Cognizant of this, and bearing in mind the above discussion, it is the position of this Court that, for Bankruptcy Code purposes, this debtor is a business trust.

Section 101(8) includes a business trust in the definition of a corporation, but a trust does not qualify merely because it carries on a business.

Mosby v. Boatmen's Bank (In Re Mosby) · filed 1985-08-02(8)

It is well established that a business trust is something more than simply a trust that carries on a business. ... Essentially, Congress included business trusts in the Bankruptcy Code definition of a corporation as a person because of their similarity to corporations. ... Accordingly, the decision of the bankruptcy court that the trust created by John C. Mosby is not a business trust and not otherwise entitled to proceed as a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code and granting the motions to dismiss will be affirmed.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes business trusts within the definition of corporation, but a nominee trust lacking the characteristics of a business trust does not qualify.

In Re L & v. Realty Trust · filed 1986-05-13(8)(A)(v)

Having established the fact that the Trust is not a business trust, the next question to be resolved is whether, nonetheless, a nominee trust can file as a Chapter 11 debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 301. In order to file as a debtor, it is necessary that the petitioner meet the Code’s definition of a debtor. As already mentioned, the Code defines “debtor” in 11 U.S.C. § 109(a) as a person and then expands on this definition in 11 U.S.C. § 101(33) to include corporations, among other entities, which it then defines in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)(A)(V) to include business trusts. ... This case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the debtor is not a proper debtor, as defined in the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(8) includes a liquidating trust as a corporation when it winds up its grantor’s affairs with the powers and privileges of a private corporation.

In Re Cooper Properties Liquidating Trust, Inc. · filed 1986-06-04(8)

In essence, the trust is carrying on the winding up of affairs of its grantor corporation and may be said to be for all practical purposes an association with the powers and privileges of a private corporation.

A business trust under § 101(8) is a trust created to transact business for the benefit of investors.

In Re Medallion Realty Trust · filed 1989-07-11(8)

That dichotomy points in the right direction, but the test should be simpler— whether the trust was created to transact business for the benefit of investors.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes business trusts within the definition of a corporation, but a family trust does not qualify merely because it conducts business activities.

In Re St. Augustine Trust · filed 1990-01-10(8)(A)(v)

Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the debtor is a family trust rather than a “business trust” as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)(A)(v). The Court further concludes that the mere fact that the trust happens to engage in business activities does not therefore make it a “business trust” within the meaning of the Code.

Section 101 treats a business trust as a corporation, but an employee benefit trust that conducts no business activities does not qualify.

In Re Westchester Cty. Civ. Serv. Emp. Ben. Fund · filed 1990-03-19(8)(A)(v)

The debtor is not eligible to file a petition for reorganizational relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code because it is not a business trust and does not qualify as a person within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(35) and § 109(d).

Section 101 treats a trust as a business trust when it conducts business or commercial activities for its beneficiaries; a trust that conducts no business does not qualify as a person on that basis.

Westchester County Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Benefit Fund v. Westchester County (In re Westchester County Civil Ser · filed 1990-03-19(8)(A)(v)

The debtor trust fund is not engaged in any business activities and does not generate any business profits. ... The debtor is not eligible to file a petition for reorganizational relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code because it is not a business trust and does not qualify as a person within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(35) and § 109(d).

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes a business trust in the definition of a corporation, making a qualifying trust eligible to be a debtor.

In Re Village Green Realty Trust · filed 1990-04-30(8)(A)(v)

Clearly, a business trust is eligible for relief since the Code provides only a person may be a debtor, 11 U.S.C. § 109(a), and a person is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(33) to include a corporation, which in turn is defined to include a business trust.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes business trusts as corporations; a trust that merely holds investment property without operating a business does not qualify.

In Re Heritage North Dunlap Trust · filed 1990-05-15(8)(A)(v)

The debtors claim that they are business trusts and, therefore, eligible to file under the definition of corporation as it now appears in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)(A)(v). The section simply says “a business trust.” ... Since the Code does not define what constitutes a business trust, we look to state law. ... These nine New Hampshire trusts were not business trusts and, therefore, the cases must be dismissed.

Section 101(8)(A)(v) includes business trusts in the definition of corporation; a trust that does not qualify as a business trust is excluded.

In Re Constitutional Trust No. 2-562 · filed 1990-05-18(8)(A)(v)

Section 101(8)(A)(v) defines “corporation” to include business trusts. ... First, the trust, by its own terms, is not a business trust.

Section 101(9) requires a business trust to have significant corporate attributes, especially transferable beneficial interests.

In Re Parade Realty, Inc., Emp. Ret. Pension Trust · filed 1991-11-04(9)

While transferability need not be evidenced by actual certificates, the beneficial interests in any purported business trust must be transferable. Without transferability, the trust herein fails to fall within the realm of a business trust.

Section 101 includes a business trust in its definition of a corporation, but a liquidating trust that does not qualify as a business trust is not a proper Chapter 11 debtor.

In Re Action Roofing & Supply Co. · filed 1991-12-31(9)(A)(v)

6. The Bankruptcy Code allows only a person or a municipality to be a debtor. A person is defined to include a corporation, and a corporation is defined to include a “business trust”. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(41), 101(9)(A)(v). 7. A business trust is an arrangement whereby owners convey the assets to a trustee. The trustee then issues shares to the owners, as beneficiaries of the trust. The trustee administers the assets, and pays income from the assets to the beneficiaries. ... 9. The court concludes that the Action Roofing and Supply Co. Liquidating Trust is not a proper debtor under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and that there was no possible “reorganization” of this entity, merely an effort to restructure a liquidation already determined by a state court.

Section 101(9) includes a business trust within the definition of a corporation; whether a trust qualifies depends on its documents and the totality of the circumstances.

In Re Morgantown Trust No. 1 · filed 1993-06-03(9)

Subsection 101(9) defines corporation to include “business trust.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(9). ... Based upon the express terms of the trust documents and the totality of the circumstances, in substance, the subject trust is not a business trust eligible for bankruptcy relief.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) includes business trusts within the definition of corporation, but a trust created to secure loan repayment does not qualify merely because it later manages and sells collateral.

In Re Secured Equipment Trust Of Eastern Airlines, Inc., Debtor · filed 1994-10-17(9)(A)(v)

Any business activities that the Trust is currently engaged in are incidental to the Trust's sole responsibility of protecting the certificateholders' security interest. Accordingly, keeping in mind that our "inquiry must focus on the trust documents and the totality of the circumstances, not solely on whether the trust engages in a business," In re St. Augustine Trust, 109 B.R. at 496, we find that the Trust is not eligible for bankruptcy protection.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) does not treat a trust created to facilitate secured financing as a business trust when its business activities merely protect creditors’ security interests.

Shawmut Bank Connecticut, National Ass'n LNC Investments v. First Fidelity Bank · filed 1994-10-17(9)(A)(v)

The Indenture makes it clear that the Trust was not established to run a business enterprise, but was merely created to serve as a vehicle to facilitate a secured financing by Eastern. By placing title to the Collateral Pool in one party—the Collateral Trustee—the Trust enabled numerous lenders to receive the benefit of a security interest without the need for multiple security agreements and filings, which would drastically increase transaction costs. Any business activities that the Trust is currently engaged in are incidental to the Trust’s sole responsibility of protecting the certificateholders’ security interest.

Only a business trust qualifies as a corporation under Section 101; eligibility is determined under federal law.

In Re Gurney's Inn Corp. Liquidating Trust · filed 1997-12-01(9)(A)(v)

The legislative history underlying the Code’s definition of “corporation” makes clear that, except for a “business trust,” a trust is not a “person” eligible for bankruptcy relief.

A business trust must have corporate attributes, including a primary purpose of conducting business for profit; escrow accounts that generate no income do not qualify.

Dayton Title Agency, Inc. v. White Family Companies (In Re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.) · filed 2001-05-15(9)(A)(v), (41)

One main characteristic determining a business trust is whether it was created with the primary purpose of transacting business or carrying on commercial activity for a profit. ... Although these activities may fall within the definition of “business trust” for the underwriters’ purposes, they do not qualify the entity as a business trust for bankruptcy eligibility.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) includes trusts created primarily to conduct business for investors within the definition of corporation, without requiring transferable certificates of ownership.

In Re Kenneth Allen Knight Trust, Debtor. Angela Lynn Brady-Morris Denise Michele Brady v. J. Baxter Schilling, Trustee · filed 2002-09-13(9)(A)(v)

Things became more complicated after the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, when Congress deleted the above-quoted language and instead provided that the term “corporation” included a “business trust,” 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v), without defining the new term. ... We join those courts that have concluded that Congress intended to dispense with the transferable-certificate-of-ownership requirement when it changed the statute in 1978.

A trust qualifies as a business trust when its primary purpose is to conduct business or commercial activity for investors, rather than preserve property for beneficiaries.

White Family Companies, Inc. v. Dayton Title Agency, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27(9)(A)(v)

Corporations are, in turn, defined to include business trusts. 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v). ... Based upon that decision, which will be published, this Court concludes that the primary purpose test must be applied to determine whether something is a business trust.

A business trust must do more than hold and disburse funds; it must be used to benefit investors.

Dayton Title Agency, Inc. v. White Family Companies, Inc. (In Re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.) · filed 2003-04-25(9)(A)(v)

Thus, a business trust must not only hold and disburse funds, but also be used to provide a profit to or increase in the assets of investors.

Section 101(9) includes a business trust within the definition of a corporation; a family trust does not qualify merely because it later conducts business.

In Re Hughes Living Trust · filed 2004-01-21(9)

The distinction made between the definition of a “business trust” as a “person” and a “trust” as an “entity” is significant for it imparts a clear statement that a “business trust” is eligible to be a debtor, while an ordinary trust is not.

Section 101 includes business trusts in the definition of corporation but excludes nonbusiness trusts, including a trust formed to hold property and file a bankruptcy petition.

In Re McCarthy · filed 2004-07-21(9)(A)(v)

A "corporation” includes a business trust. 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v). Courts have inferred, therefore, that a "corporation” does not include a nonbusiness trust.

Section 101 includes a business trust in the definition of a corporation; a trust formed solely to liquidate assets for creditors does not qualify when its primary purpose is not to transact business for investors.

In Re Estate of the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of May · filed 2008-05-27(9)(A)(v)

While generally a trust is not eligible to be a debtor, one exception is that the definition of a “corporation” includes a “business trust.” ... Applying the Sixth Circuit test, this Court finds that the primary purpose of the liquidating trust in this case is not “transacting business or commercial activity for the benefit of investors,” as required by Knight Trust.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) includes a business trust within the definition of a corporation, but does not define “business trust.”

In Re. General Growth Properties, Inc. · filed 2009-08-11(9)(A)(v)

The term “corporation” in turn includes a “business trust.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v). However, neither the Bankruptcy Code nor its legislative history defines the term “business trust.”

Whether a trust is a business trust depends on its purpose and operations.

In re Jin Suk Kim Trust · filed 2011-08-08(9)(A)(v)

The one overriding principle that emerges from the cases is that the determination of whether a trust is a business trust is fact-specific and focuses on the purpose and operations of the trust. Under this broader view, the Court concludes the Debtor is a business trust.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) includes a business trust within the definition of a corporation; a trust’s purpose and actual operations determine whether it qualifies.

In re Blanche Zwerdling Revocable Living Trust · filed 2015-06-11(9)(A)(v)

The definition of “corporation” is limited to certain business entities, including a “business trust.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v). ... The focus is on both the purpose of the trust and the actual operations of the trust. ... Because I find the Trust is not a business trust, and therefore ineligible for bankruptcy, I do not need to address the allegation that the petition was filed in bad faith.

A pension trust established to preserve assets and pay beneficiaries, rather than generate income or profit, is not a business trust within Section 101(9)(A)(v)'s definition of a corporation.

In re Catholic Sch. Emps. Pension Trust · filed 2018-03-13(9)(A)(v)

The court finds that the debtor trust is not a business trust, and, thus, is ineligible to file a bankruptcy petition. Therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as the debtor trust does not meet the definition of a corporation in § 101(9)(A)(v).

Under § 101(9) and (41), a business trust qualifies as a corporation and therefore a person, but a trust primarily formed to preserve assets for family beneficiaries does not qualify as a business trust.

Don Murphy, Lorraine Dille Williams, Robert Nichols Flint Dille, & Team Angry Filmworks, Inc. v. Bernstein (In re Dille · filed 2019-02-20(9), (41)

For this reason alone, the Dille Family Trust does not qualify as a "business trust" and is therefore ineligible for bankruptcy relief by operation of 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(9), 101(41), and 109(d).

A trust formed primarily to preserve pension assets for participants does not qualify as a business trust merely because it makes passive investments.

Catholic Sch. Emps. Pension Trust v. Abreu · filed 2019-04-18(9)(A)(v)

Based on the totality of the circumstances as reflected in the record, the Pension Trust failed to establish that it was a business trust and thus does not qualify as a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101 includes business trusts within its definition of a corporation, but a nonbusiness revocable trust cannot be a Chapter 7 debtor.

Michael A. Luedke and Patricia G. Luedke · filed 2020-07-28(9)(A)(v)

While LLCs, corporations, and even business trusts can file for bankruptcy protection, a non-business revocable trust like the one at issue here cannot be a debtor.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) treats a business trust as a corporation, but a testamentary trust is not an eligible bankruptcy debtor.

Rae v. 2002 John C. Erickson GST Trust · filed 2021-04-22(9)(A)(v)

Moreover, this Court agrees with and adopts Judge Harner’s conclusion of law after de novo review of the record: the GST Trusts were testamentary trusts, not business trusts, making summary judgment appropriate since they are not proper debtors under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) treats a business trust as a corporation; a trust whose primary purpose is to benefit family members does not qualify as a business trust.

Rae v. 2002 Nancy A. Erickson GST Trust · filed 2021-04-22(9)(A)(v)

Moreover, this Court agrees with and adopts Judge Harner’s conclusion of law after de novo review of the record: the GST Trusts were testamentary trusts, not business trusts, making summary judgment appropriate since they are not proper debtors under the Bankruptcy Code.

A business trust must have been formed to transact business for profit, have engaged in substantial business before the petition, and have the attributes of a corporation.

Palsata Trust · filed 2021-04-23(9)(A)(v)

Accordingly, the Court holds that a business trust is a trust that, based on the totality of the circumstances (i) was formed for the purpose of transacting business for a profit rather than merely preserving the res; (ii) actually engaged in substantial business prior to the petition date and (iii) in-fact has all of the indicia of a corporate entity.

Section 101 includes a business trust within its definition of a corporation; a trust that does not transact business for investors may fail to qualify.

Palsata Trust v. Wilmington Trust, National Association · filed 2022-03-30(9)(A)

Because Palsata Trust was not a business trust under the bankruptcy code, the Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in concluding that Palsata Trust had not carried its burden of showing its eligibility to be a chapter 7 debtor.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) includes a business trust in the definition of corporation; a trust created and maintained to preserve property for family beneficiaries does not qualify as a business trust.

Two Rivers Irrevocable Trust · filed 2023-07-17(9)(A)(v)

Applying these factors to the facts at hand, the Court finds Two Rivers Trust is not a “business trust” as used in the Bankruptcy Code. The Court notes that feature one, whether the trust was created and maintained for a business purpose, is dispositive as to whether Two Rivers Trust is a business trust.

Section 101(9)(A)(v) includes business trusts within the definition of a corporation, but excludes other trusts.

Vera T. Welte Testamentary Trust · filed 2024-06-03(9)(A)(v)

The term “corporation” includes a business trust, but no other kinds of trusts. 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v).

A business trust must be created and maintained to conduct business; failure to meet that requirement is dispositive.

Whitehall Trust · filed 2026-03-19(9)(A)(v)

Among the most important attributes of a business trust are: (1) existence as such under applicable state law; (2) transferable, beneficial interests; (3) perpetual existence; (4) formation by investors; and (5) creation and maintenance for the purpose of conducting business. Although these criteria are not exhaustive, failure to satisfy the last factor is dispositive.

Section 101’s definitions exclude a non-business trust from the entities eligible to be a Chapter 11 debtor.

Kozma v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas · filed 2023-09-29(9)(A)(v), (41)

Because there was no evidence or argument presented by Kozma that the “constructive trust” was a business trust, and under 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(9)(A)(v), 101(41), and 109(a), a non-business trust cannot be a Chapter 11 debtor, see, e.g., In re St. Augustine Tr., 109 B.R. 494, 495-96, (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990), the bankruptcy court dismissed the case for cause.

A contingent right to payment from a later owner is not a claim against the debtor and does not make its holder a creditor of the debtor.

Covenant Clearinghouse v. Trinity Falls · filed 2024-12-18(5)(A), (10)(A)

But the Declaration expressly exempted the Debtors from paying any fees. This meant that CCH’s right to payment would not accrue until the property was sold twice—once by the Debtors and again by ... the second owner. So CCH would assert its claim against the third owner subject to the Declaration. That is not a contingent claim against the Debtors. CCH was not a creditor.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim, including liability arising from a contractual right to payment.

Simmons Bank v. Kibby · filed 2024-12-16(5)(A), (12)

A debt is defined as liability on a claim. 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). A claim is defined as “(A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Here, Kibby’s debt is his liability to Simmons because of its payment to Kibby in exchange for work he did not perform, which constitutes a breach of contract per the mediation agreement, and later the consent judgment.

Section 101 distinguishes claims for payment or equitable remedies from equity securities such as corporate shares.

Endo International plc · filed 2024-12-13(5)(A), (B); (16)(A)

“[A] ‘claim’ is a ‘right to payment’ or ‘equitable remedy.’” ... By contrast, an “equity security” is “inter alia, a ‘share in a corporation . . . or similar security.’” Id. (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 101(16)(A)). ... As a matter of law, the Equity Interests do not constitute liabilities of the Debtors or their estates. The Court disallows and expunges the Equity Interests and reclassifies them as equity interests.

Section 101(5)(B) treats a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance as a claim when the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

Just Funky, LLC v. Boom Trendz, LLC · filed 2024-10-16(5)(B)

“Claim,” in turn, refers to: ... (B) [R]ight to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). Thus, the discharge injunction precludes Just Funky from achieving either monetary or injunctive relief against Carpenter.

A claim requires a right to payment from the debtor that is enforceable under applicable state law; an attorney’s engagement letter that gives no such right against the debtor does not create a claim.

Vitamins Online v. Heartwise · filed 2024-09-30(5)(A)

Under § 101(5)(A) a “claim” is a “right to payment” from the debtor, which the courts have interpreted to “mean[] an enforceable obligation under applicable state law.” ... For the reasons explained above, the Letter did not grant MCG an assignment or PCI that is an “enforceable obligation under applicable state law” against Heartwise. As such, the Court concludes that MCG did not obtain the right to collect payment of the Judgment via the Letter.

A creditor has no claim under § 101(5) when it has no right to seek payment from the debtor after pledged property has been forfeited.

TitleMax of Alabama Inc v. Wills · filed 2024-07-27(5)

Under these circumstances, TitleMax did not have a “claim” against Mr. Wills as defined by the Bankruptcy Code because TitleMax had no right to seek payment from Mr. Wills.

Section 101(5) includes an alter-ego theory seeking to impose a corporate obligation on its owners within the definition of a claim.

In Re Mark A. Nordlicht · filed 2024-08-15(5)

This description of alter-ego theories of liability neatly falls within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “claim”: ... 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) (emphases added). Therefore, to the extent that New York law anywhere states or implies that an alter-ego theory of liability is a “remedy,” that notion is trumped by the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a contractual legal right to payment within the definition of a claim.

FOMB v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n · filed 2024-11-13(5)(A)

Instead, we find that the Bondholders had a legal "right to payment" rooted in the covenants outlined in the Trust Agreement.

A person who guarantees a debtor’s debts and lends it money qualifies as a creditor.

In re: Witchey Enterprises Inc v. · filed 2024-06-04(10)

Neither does Katsock dispute that Witchey was a personal guarantor of certain debts of the Debtor and loaned money to the Debtor post-petition. This made him a creditor of the Debtor.

Section 101(5) includes contingent claims, but a person must identify circumstances in which it could hold a claim against the debtor.

Team Systems International, LLC · filed 2024-02-01(5)

The Bankruptcy Code’s definition of claim is extremely broad and expressly includes “contingent” claims. ... But in order to have standing, the objecting defendants must still describe some set of circumstances in which they might end up holding a claim. ... As such, they are not creditors.

Section 101(5) includes unresolved causes of action within the definition of a claim, even when liability has not yet been adjudicated.

In Re: William M. Mattei and Tracy Mattei · filed 2024-04-12(5)

Indeed, she has claims in the Surrogate’s Court, but not a debt because liability on the claims has not yet been adjudicated by the Surrogate.

An injunction requiring a debtor to stop conduct is not a claim merely because breaching it could give rise to damages.

Squarepoint Ops, LLC v. Sesum · filed 2024-06-13(5)(B)

The Plaintiff is not seeking a payment through the Injunction. Instead, the Injunction adds the potential for a damages claim if the Defendant fails to comply with the terms of the Injunction.

Section 101(5)(B) treats an injunction as a claim when it provides a right to payment; an injunction directing a debtor to stop conduct does not qualify merely because a breach could lead to damages.

Vojislav Sesum · filed 2024-06-13(5)(B)

Courts within the Second Circuit find that where injunctive relief imposes a right to payment, the injunction satisfies the definition of “claim” pursuant to section 101(5). ... The Injunction fails to include a right to payment.

Section 101(5) includes disputed rights to payment within the definition of a claim; a dispute alone does not make a claim unliquidated.

Jackson v. Feldman · filed 2024-05-09(5)

As previously mentioned, the mere fact that Debtor disputes the amount does not impact this Court’s ruling, as the existence of an actual dispute does not render a claim unliquidated.

Section 101(5)(B) excludes equitable relief from the definition of a claim when it protects interests distinct from a right to payment.

Empower Central Michigan Inc · filed 2024-04-26(5)(B)

Accordingly, the equitable relief at issue in this case is not simply an alternative to a right of payment and, therefore, cannot be reduced to a monetary claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B).

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent and unliquidated rights to payment in the definition of a claim.

Mallinckrodt PLC v. · filed 2024-04-25(5)(A)

But Sanofi’s argument fails because the Bankruptcy Code allows for claims that are both contingent and unliquidated. § 101(5)(A).

Section 101(5)(A) includes a legal right to payment under revenue bonds within the definition of a claim.

FOMB v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n · filed 2024-06-12(5)(A)

Instead, we find that the Bondholders had a legal "right to payment" rooted in the covenants outlined in the Trust Agreement.

Section 101(10) includes a party that held a claim against the debtor before the bankruptcy petition within the definition of creditor.

Fieldwood Energy III LLC v. Star Measurement Sales and Service, Inc. · filed 2024-03-12(10)

As a result, Star held a claim against Fieldwood prior to the petition date, which is sufficient to establish Star as a creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 101(10).

Section 101(5)(A) includes disputed rights to payment in the definition of a claim.

Rothman v. Friedman Vartolo, LLP · filed 2024-02-20(5)(A)

What is more, the disputed nature of the claim does not invalidate or extinguish the claim under the bankruptcy code. 11 U.S.C.A. § 101(5)(A) provides: ... Thus, the Plaintiff’s disputing the claim does not make SN Servicing any less of a “creditor” in bankruptcy.

Section 101(5)(A) includes unmatured amounts in the definition of a claim, allowing a lender to present the full loan obligation in bankruptcy without formally accelerating it.

Tiffiany Tamara Rolle · filed 2024-02-16(5)(A)

The Court notes that, in general, it is not necessary for a lender to formally accelerate a debt to preserve its right to present the entire obligation as a claim in bankruptcy. Under the Bankruptcy Code, claims specifically include “unmatured” amounts. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

Section 101(5) defines a bankruptcy claim as a right to payment or a qualifying equitable remedy, rather than a factual representation.

The City of Atlantic City v. Drummon · filed 2024-02-14(5)

Accordingly, the City uses the term “claim” only in the colloquial sense, as a factual representation—not as bankruptcy claim within the meaning of section 101(5). Therefore, Count Five fails to state a claim for relief against Drummon.

Section 101(5) includes a right to payment in the definition of a claim; a creditor can hold a claim based on repayment from the debtor’s property despite the debtor’s lack of personal liability.

Deborah L. Dorlaque · filed 2024-02-28(5)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim against the debtor” to include “a right to payment, or the right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... Consequently, the Trust holds a claim against the Debtor because the Trust possesses a right to repayment from the Property.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor by a claim against the debtor arising by the order for relief; filing a proof of claim is unnecessary for that status.

Farinash v. Kelley · filed 2024-01-25(10)(A)

The term “creditor” is defined as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). The term “claim,” in turn, is defined as a “right to payment.” Id. § 101(5)(A). To qualify as a “creditor” as defined by the Bankruptcy Code, the entity need not file a proof claim.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment; a mortgage creditor has no claim against a debtor who owes it nothing and whose interests in the mortgaged property give it no right to payment.

Sean Higgins · filed 2023-12-20(5)(A)

A claim is a “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Matrix does not have a right to payment from the debtor himself, nor does it have a right to payment from the debtor’s possessory or equitable interests in the Property or from the debtor’s interest in his father’s probate estate.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment that survives discharge even though the creditor can no longer enforce it against the debtor personally.

Ries v. Barton 5 Family, LP · filed 2023-12-06(5)(A)

The discharge is focused on the debtor’s personal liability on a debt, which the Code defines as a “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). And, like TUFTA, the Code defines a claim as a “right to payment….” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). These provisions, read together, draw the distinction between a discharge of the debtor’s personal liability and the creditor’s right to payment. The discharge relieves the debtor’s obligation to pay and the creditor’s ability to enforce the debt as opposed to the creditor’s right to payment on its claim.

Section 101 defines a claim to include a right to payment even if disputed or unliquidated, and a creditor to include an entity with a prepetition claim against the debtor.

Ikechukwu H. Okorie · filed 2023-11-06(5), (10)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, “creditor” includes an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose before the bankruptcy, and “claim” includes a right to payment regardless of whether it is disputed or liquidated. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(10), (5). All claimants addressed in this opinion provided information and documentation establishing that they have prepetition claims against Dr. Okorie individually. Consequently, there is no merit to his argument.