finding that Debtor’s expenses are reasonably necessary for the maintenance or support of himself and his dependents. Courts disagree on the point in time a debtor’s ability to pay should be measured. See e.g. Anthony v. Anthony (In re Anthony), 190 B.R. 433 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.l995)(the petition filing date); In re Hesson, 190 B.R. 229 (Bankr.D.Md. 1995)(the time of trial); Hill v. Hill (In re Hill) 184 B.R. 750 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1995)(the date the complaint is filed). In addition, whether a debtor’s “ability” should encompass his earning potential or whether it should be limited to a “snapshot” of a debtor’s financial capacity at a specified point in time has also become an issue amongst bankruptcy courts. See e.g. Henderson v. Henderson (In re Henderson), 200 B.R. 322 (Bankr. N.D.Ohio 1996)(<HOLDING>); But see Brasslett v. Brasslett (In re
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that a court can consider a debtors prospective earning ability holding that the trial court can consider evidence regarding facts required to determine coverage that were not adjudicated in the underlying litigation holding that this court can consider claims not specifically excluded by a coa holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction