could not file chapter 11 because the prevailing law at the time was that a debtor had to be engaged in business to be eligible for chapter 11 relief, citing Wamsganz v. Boatmen’s Bank of De Sota, 804 F.2d 503 (8th Cir.1986). Individual debtors, according to Price, were then limited to filing chapter 13, which required them to contribute all disposable income to a plan for three years. Thus, he asserts, a debtor’s decision to file under chapter 7 to avoid the chapter 13 disposable income requirement is not substantial abuse, because he could have kept post-petition income had he filed chapter 11. Second, Price notes that § 707(b) requires a finding of “a substantial abuse of the provisions of this chapter,” (emphasis added) and that there is no requirement in chapter Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Further, the logic of Price’s chapter 11
holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible for chapter 11 holding that individual debtors may use chapter 11 to save the family home from foreclosure holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory holding consumer debtors may be eligible for chapter 11 under certain circumstances