SUSAN KELLEY, Bankruptcy Judge
Neil A. Hausknecht (the "Debtor") owns his Milwaukee residence jointly with his brother. He and his brother are both obligated to Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company who holds the mortgage on the property. The monthly mortgage payments are $1,266, and in completing his Chapter 13 Statement of Current Monthly Income (Form B22C), the Debtor listed $1,266 for the mortgage expense on Line 47. However, when he filed his Schedule of Current Expenses (Schedule J), the Debtor listed $650 for his mortgage expense, reflecting the fact that he only pays one-half of the mortgage payment. On his Schedule J, the Debtor stated: "[H]is brother is 1/2 owner of home — lives with debtor and pays 1/2 of all mtg, utilities, etc." While the Debtor's attorney suggested at the hearing that the Debtor's brother was no longer paying one-half of the mortgage payments, no amendment was ever filed to the Schedule J.
Arguing that the deduction of 100% of the mortgage payment is excessive, the Trustee objected to confirmation of the Debtor's Chapter 13 plan because the plan does not provide all projected disposable income for the five year applicable commitment period. The Trustee contends that the Debtor is not dedicating all of his projected disposable income to unsecured creditors, as required by § 1325(b)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, which states:
(b)(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan unless, as of the effective date of the plan . . .
(B) the plan provides that all of the debtor's projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the plan.
The Bankruptcy Code defines "disposable income" as the debtor's current monthly income less the amounts reasonably necessary to be expended for the debtor's support. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2). Current monthly income is also defined by the Bankruptcy Code, and generally it is the debtor's average monthly income from the six months prior to the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A). For debtors with income above the state median, § 1325(b)(3) states that deductions for "amounts reasonably necessary to be expended under paragraph (2) . . . shall be" calculated in accordance with § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B). Section 707(b)(2) is the Chapter 7 "means test" provision. Significantly, an above-median debtor's expense deductions are governed by Form B22C, and not Schedule J. See In re Guzman, 345 B.R. 640 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2006). However, in In re Turner, 574 F.3d 349, 355 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated: "Since the object of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is to balance the need of the debtor to cover his living expenses against the interest of the unsecured creditors in recovering as much of what the debtor owes them as possible, we cannot see the merit in throwing out undisputed information, bearing on how much the debtor can afford to pay, that comes to light between the submission and approval of a plan of reorganization."
The specific deduction at issue here is governed by § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I) which states:
(iii) The debtor's average monthly payments on account of secured debts shall be calculated as the sum of —
(I) the total of all amounts scheduled as contractually due to secured creditors in each month of the 60 months following the date of the petition."
The Debtor argues that even though he is only a one-half owner of the property, he is still contractually obligated to pay 100% of the full mortgage payments each month. However, his argument ignores the "undisputed information" that he only expects to pay one-half of the payments for the life of his Chapter 13 plan. Like the debtors in Turner, who would not have a mortgage payment after they surrendered their house, the Debtor in this case will not have a full mortgage payment according to his sworn Schedules.
Moreover, even if the deduction is proper under the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code, the contribution of the Debtor's brother must be taken into account. See In re Quigley, 391 B.R. 294, 316 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2008). In Quigley, a Chapter 13 debtor co-owned a truck with her ex-boyfriend. The truck was in the sole possession of the ex-boyfriend, and he made the payments. Nevertheless, the debtor deducted the full amount of the payment on line 47 of Form B22C. Although the court found the deduction proper under the language of § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I), the court held that, "the amount that the ex-boyfriend has paid over the six months preceding the bankruptcy filing should be factored into the Debtor's calculation of `current monthly income' on Part I of Form B22C. By not including the receipt of this benefit, the debtor has understated her income." Id.
A similar result should occur here. Either under Turner, which requires the court to consider the undisputed information that the Debtor's brother is making one-half of the mortgage payments or, following Quigley, under which the Debtor's brother's contribution to the mortgage payments must be reflected in the Debtor's income, the Debtor's projected disposable income is overstated. Therefore the Trustee's Objection to Confirmation is sustained.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: the Trustee's Objection is sustained, and the Debtor will have 30 days from the date of this Order to file a modified Plan, or the Debtor's Chapter 13 case will be dismissed.