New BK Law >25% Consumer debt=abuse?

That doesn't make sense to me. Anything on your credit report would technically be classified as "consumer debt." Credit cards, car loans, mortgages, installment loans ... those are all consumer debts. I would need to read what you read, but I think maybe you misread it.

I think I did too. I'm way below the median income at approx $750 a month in income. Heres what I read:

Presumption of abuse
Prior to the BAPCPA Amendments, debtors of all incomes could file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. BAPCPA restricted the number of debtors that could declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The act sets out a method to calculate a debtor's income, and compares this amount to the median income of the debtor's state. If the debtor's income is above the median income amount of the debtor's state, the debtor is subject to a "means test." [2]

The most noteworthy change brought by the 2005 BAPCPA amendments occurred within 11 U.S.C. ?? 707(b). Congress amended this section of the Bankruptcy Code to provide for the dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 7 case upon a finding of ???abuse??? by an individual debtor (or married couple) with ???primarily consumer debt.??? The pre-BAPCPA language of ?? 707(b) provided for dismissal of a chapter 7 case upon a finding of ???substantial abuse.??? Under the former ?? 707(b), only the court or the United States trustee could bring a motion to find abuse under the section. The 2005 amendments removed these restrictions.

Post-BAPCPA, ?? 707(b) provides two definitions of "abuse." ???Abuse??? may be found when there is an unrebutted ???presumption of abuse??? arising under a BAPCPA-created ???means test,??? [?? 707(b)(2)], or through a finding of bad faith, determined by a totality of the circumstances [?? 707(b)(3)].


Means test
Only debtors whose monthly income is higher than the median income of their state, as calculated by the Code, are subject to being found abusive under ?? 707(b)(2). Debtors whose income falls below the median income figure may be in violation of the means test, however no party is permitted to file a motion in order to find abuse under ?? 707(b)(2).[3] This creates a means test "safe harbor" for debtors below the state's median income figure.

Yeah, that's just a weird way to phrase it. "...with primarily consumer debt" is just an adjective to describe the individual consumer. But that doesn't have anything to do with the presumption of abuse.

If you're income is below your state median, then I'd say you're safe.