The recent case of In re McLain, 2007 WL 3124688 (Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.,2007) confronted the question of whether a debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan payments must increase as secured debts were paid off.

The Debtors filed a Chapter 13 case noting that they had three vehicle loans, all of which would mature during the course of their plan. The Plan, however, did not call for payments to increase as the vehicle loans were paid off.

The Chapter 13 Trustee and an unsecured creditor, eCast Settlement Corporation each objected to the confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 Plan on the grounds that the proposed plan failed to devote all of the Debtors’ “projected disposable income” to be received in the “applicable commitment period” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

Judge Littlefield, in overruling the objections and confirming the Plan, noted that in order for the court to confirm a plan over the objection of the trustee or a holder of an unsecured claim, a debtor must pay each allowed unsecured claim in full, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A), or devote all projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period to make payments to unsecured creditors, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). The Plan in question would pay a 5% divident to unsecured creditors, so the Debtors are required to devote all of their projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period to make payments to their unsecured creditors pursuant to § 1325(b)(1)(B).

Subsequent to the parties briefing the issue in this case, the court rendered In re Green, — B.R. —-, 2007 WL 4026511 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2007), which held, in relation to the issue in the current case, that disposable income and projected disposable income are interrelated and are based on historical numbers as mandated in § 1325(b).

Applying the court’s analysis in Green to the case sub judice leads to the conclusion that financial events occurring over the course of a debtor’s plan would have no relevance to a debtor’s plan payment necessary for confirmation purposes. Id. Future events simply do not mesh with the backward glance required by § 1325(b)(1)(B) at confirmation. Thus, the apparent liberation of debtor monies by the proposed retirement of automotive loans during the life of a plan is not an impediment to confirmation for purposes of § 1325(b)(1)(B). [FN6] As the Debtors’ second amended plan provides for monthly plan payments of $250 for a period of 60 months, the court finds that the Debtors have satisfied § 1325(b)(1)(B).