My Bankruptcy Law Network colleague Craig Andresen reported on a decision that found large payments on secured debt, including some for boat and RV, were permissible deductions in the means test.  The UST had argued that the debtors were abusing the system if they didn’t stop paying on the secured debt in order to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

Note that the UST’s argument was that the debtors should stop paying on the secured debt in order to pay other creditors, the unsecureds.  What business does the UST have in trying to further the interests of one set of creditors over another?  What makes the unsecured creditors more deserving than the secured creditors?

You wonder how the UST determines when a house payment is excessive, in its view.  Does the title make one all knowing?

In the crazy world of BAPCPA, hurray for a judge who reads the (idiotic] law and applies it as written.