the plain language of the statute. In re Ross-Tousey, 549 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir.2008); In re Lynch, 368 B.R. 487 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2007); In re Watson, 366 B.R. 523 (Bankr.D.Md. 2007). Accordingly, the court determines that the $489.00 ownership expense allowance was properly deducted from CMI for purposes of the means test. B. With respect to the $9,477 in monthly payments on the four mortgages against the two residential properties that the debtors propose to surrender, the court likewise concludes — although again there is case authority to the contrary— that their deduction (as “payments scheduled as contractually due ” during the 60 months following the filing of the petition) is permitted by the plain language of the statute. Lynch v. Haenke (In re Haenke), 395 B.R. 346 (E.D.N.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); In re Quigley, 391 B.R. 294
holding that for purpose of the means test debtor can deduct mortgage payment even though debtor will abandon property holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding that a creditor did not incur debt for the purpose of set off where it stopped payment to the debtor holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding that debtor cannot take advantage of  522f after debtor has transferred his exempt property