On July 16, 2025, the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC) and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) filed a joint amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in support of the debtor-appellant in Goddard v. Burnett, Case No. 25-1303. The case presents a critical question about the interaction between the statutory “means test” and the judicially interpreted “good faith” standard in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.
[Read more…] about Fourth Circuit Appeal in Goddard v. Burnett Examines the Role of Good Faith in Paying Secured Debts in Chapter 13 PlansSupreme Court Declines to Hear Trustee’s Appeal in Saldana—Victory for Chapter 13 Debtors and Retirement Security
On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Chapter 13 trustee’s petition for certiorari in Bronitsky v. Saldana, leaving intact a significant Ninth Circuit decision that protects the ability of debtors to continue contributing to retirement accounts while repaying unsecured creditors through a Chapter 13 plan.
The Court’s denial is a quiet but consequential win for consumer debtors—and a reaffirmation that long-term financial stability, including retirement savings, has a place within bankruptcy’s rehabilitative structure.
[Read more…] about Supreme Court Declines to Hear Trustee’s Appeal in Saldana—Victory for Chapter 13 Debtors and Retirement SecuritySupreme Court Asked to Decide Whether Chapter 13 Debtors Can Prioritize Retirement Contributions Over Unsecured Creditors—NCBRC Monitoring Case Closely
The consumer bankruptcy world is watching closely as a critical issue heads to the U.S. Supreme Court in Bronitsky v. Saldana. The case, now pending in a petition for certiorari, asks whether Chapter 13 debtors may continue contributing to retirement accounts at the expense of unsecured creditors. The Ninth Circuit said yes. The petitioning Chapter 13 trustee says absolutely not. And the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC) is paying close attention.
If the Court grants certiorari, NCBRC stands ready to join the fight directly.
[Read more…] about Supreme Court Asked to Decide Whether Chapter 13 Debtors Can Prioritize Retirement Contributions Over Unsecured Creditors—NCBRC Monitoring Case CloselyCan Debtors Prioritize Retirement Over Creditors? Trustee Seeks Supreme Court Review in In re Saldana
In a move that could have sweeping implications for Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases nationwide, Martha G. Bronitsky, the Chapter 13 Trustee, has filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in In re Saldana. The case centers on whether voluntary contributions to retirement accounts should be excluded from a debtor’s disposable income calculation. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Saldana sided with the debtor, holding that voluntary retirement contributions are shielded from creditors, a ruling that some argue disrupts the balance between debtor protections and creditor rights under the Bankruptcy Code. Now, the Supreme Court is being asked to step in, potentially impacting thousands of Chapter 13 cases filed each year.
[Read more…] about Can Debtors Prioritize Retirement Over Creditors? Trustee Seeks Supreme Court Review in In re SaldanaNinth Circuit Clarifies Disposable Income Exclusions for Chapter 13 Debtors Concerning Voluntary Contributions to Retirement Plans
Facts
Jorden Marie Saldana, a surgical technician earning approximately $101,776 annually, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy to reorganize her finances and address over $64,000 in unpaid taxes and unsecured debts. In calculating her disposable income, Saldana excluded $747 per month in voluntary contributions to her employer-managed retirement plan.
The Chapter 13 trustee objected, arguing that voluntary retirement contributions constitute disposable income under the Bankruptcy Code and must be applied to repay creditors. The bankruptcy court agreed, sustaining the trustee’s objection and requiring Saldana to adjust her Chapter 13 plan. Saldana appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. Saldana then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Analysis
The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower courts, holding that voluntary contributions to employer-managed retirement plans are excluded from disposable income under Chapter 13. The court relied on the “hanging paragraph” in 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(7), which explicitly states that such contributions “shall not constitute disposable income as defined in section 1325(b)(2).”
The Ninth Circuit emphasized that the statutory language is unambiguous, allowing Chapter 13 debtors to exclude any amount of voluntary contributions to qualified retirement plans from their disposable income calculations. This interpretation aligns with Congress’s intent in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) of 2005, which sought to protect retirement savings while encouraging Chapter 13 reorganizations.
The court rejected alternative interpretations that would limit the exclusion to pre-petition contributions or cap it based on historical contribution levels. It also dismissed concerns about debtor abuse, noting that Chapter 13’s good faith requirements and other safeguards adequately address potential misuse of the exclusion.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Saldana reinforces the broad protections for retirement contributions in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. By excluding voluntary contributions from disposable income, the ruling encourages debtors to maintain long-term financial stability while reorganizing their debts.
NCBRC and NACBA filed an amici brief in support of the debtor
9th Circuit to Address Whether a Debtor May Deduct Voluntary Retirement Deductions to Determine Disposable Income
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that a Chapter 13 debtor, in calculating projected disposable income, is not permitted to deduct the amount of voluntary retirement plan contributions even where the debtor was making the contributions prepetition. The debtor’s appeal from adverse decisions below.
Changes to Bankruptcy Code Dollar Amounts
Certain dollar amounts in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code will increase effective April 1, 2022, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §104. On February 4, 2022, the Judicial Conference of the United States announced and detailed these changes in The Federal Register. See Adjustment of Certain Dollar Amounts in the Bankruptcy Code, 87 Fed. Reg. 6625 (February 4, 2022).
Changes relevant to consumer bankruptcy attorneys include:
- 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) (debt limits for chapter 13):
- The unsecured debt cap has increased from $419,275 to $465,275.
- The secured debt cap has increased from $1,257,850 to $1,395,875.
- 11 U.S.C. § 522(d) (federal exemptions):
- Section 522(d)(1) (homestead exemption) has increased from $25,150 to $27,900.
- Section 522(d)(2) (motor vehicle exemption) has increased from $4,000 to $4,450.
- Section 522(d)(3) (household goods etc. exemption) has increased from $625 to $700 for value in any particular item and from $13,400 to $14,875 in aggregate value.
- Section 522(d)(4) (jewelry) has increased from $1,700 to $1,875.
- Section 522(d)(5) (unused amounts from 522(d)(1)) has increased from $1325 to $1,475 for value in any particular item and from $12,575 to $13,950 in aggregate value.
- 11 U.S.C. § 522(n) (Exemption cap for certain individual retirement accounts) has increased from $1,362,800 to $1,512,350.
- 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(i)(Means Test) – CMI is not less than the lesser of –
- Section 707(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) 25% of unsecured claims or $9,075 (up from $8,175) or
- Section 707(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) $15,150 (up from $13650).
- Section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(IV) (necessary dependent school expenses) has increased from $2,050 to $2,275.
- Section 707(b)(6)(C) (to calculate median income for family greater than 4) the amount per additional family member has increased from $750 to $825.
Local Standards Apply but Trustee Need Not Be a Sumpsimus
Despite higher actual vehicle operating costs, when calculating disposable income on the means test, above-median debtors must use the exact numerical values for expenses that are specified in the IRS’s National and Local Standards. Rodriguez v. Bronitsky (In re Rodriguez), No. 20-1085 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2020). [Read more…] about Local Standards Apply but Trustee Need Not Be a Sumpsimus
6th Circuit Clarifies Treatment of 401(k) Contributions in Chapter 13
Rejecting its own dictum in Seafort v. Burden (In re Seafort), the Sixth Circuit held that a chapter 13 debtor’s post-petition voluntary contributions to an employer-sponsored retirement plan are not part of her disposable income so long as they are a continuation of pre-petition contributions. Davis v. Helbling (In re Davis), No. 19-3117 (6th Cir. June 1, 2020).
Well before she filed for bankruptcy, the debtor began making monthly contributions in the amount of $220.66 to her retirement account. When she filed for bankruptcy, she included those contributions in her schedule of expenses. The trustee objected to confirmation of the debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan on the basis that, because of the monthly contributions to her 401(k), she was not proposing to contribute all of her disposable income to the plan. Adhering to dictum in Seafort v. Burden (In re Seafort), 669 F.3d 662, 674 n.7 (6th Cir. 2012), the bankruptcy court sustained the trustee’s objection. The debtor amended her plan to incorporate the 401(k) amount, and the bankruptcy court certified the case for direct appeal to the Sixth Circuit. [Read more…] about 6th Circuit Clarifies Treatment of 401(k) Contributions in Chapter 13
Sixth Circuit Says Contributions to Retirement Plan Not Disposable Income
Rejecting its dictum to the contrary in Seafort, the Sixth Circuit held that a debtor’s voluntary contributions to her retirement account, begun prior to bankruptcy, may continue during bankruptcy and are excluded from her disposable income. Davis v. Helbling (In re Davis), No. 19-3117 (6th Cir. June 1, 2020).
Ms. Davis had approximately $200,000 in debt, of which approximately $189,000 was unsecured. She proposed a Chapter 13 plan paying $323.00 for sixty months. The trustee objected on the basis that she underrepresented her disposable income by failing to include $220/month in wages withheld as a contribution to her employee’s 401(k) retirement plan. The bankruptcy court reluctantly sustained the trustee’s objection, stating that it was bound to follow the Sixth Circuit’s direction on the issue of voluntary contributions to an IRA as outlined in dictum in Seafort v. Burden (In re Seafort), 669 F.3d 662, 674 n.7 (6th Cir. 2012). Ms. Davis amended her plan to reflect the $220 as additional disposable income, then objected to her own plan. The bankruptcy court confirmed the amended plan and certified the case for direct appeal. [Read more…] about Sixth Circuit Says Contributions to Retirement Plan Not Disposable Income