Baud is an opinion from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. DMI is a projected figure, and in this case, when debtors were above median income filers, whether or not it was available primarily depended upon if SSI benefits may be included in the determining calculation.
Through analyzing relevant statutes 6th Circuit concluded in Baud any projected DMI determination “must not include items – such as” SSI benefits. 6th interpreted such items as already excluded from the CMI definition, per Bankruptcy Code, Sec. 101(10(A)). The exclusion of SSI and the like is permitted.
It follows then, if SSI isn’t considered in CMI, then it can’t figure into a DMI calculation either. (When DMI equals subtracting allowable monthly expenses from CMI)
Decided in Baud also, is that if a 13 Trustee or unsecured creditor objects to Confirmation, when debtor has projected DMI available and it’s less than a 100% Plan, there can’t be Confirmation unless Plan provides all projected DMI received during ACP will be disbursed to creditors, during the same.
ACP (Applicable Commitment Period) is the temporal/time requirement of a bankruptcy, determined by multiplying CMI by 12. That amount is then compared to the median income amount for the relevant state. Below median income – 3 year ACP. Above median income – 5 year ACP.
Finally, Baud presented that in a Ch. 13 there is no exception to the temporal requirement for debtors with zero or negative projected DMI.
In reality, only positive DMI is actually available to be received by a Trustee, and from which subsequent disbursements made. If there isn’t DMI available, a 7 bankruptcy is a viable option.