In re McSparran, No. 08-61606-13, 2009 WL 981131 (Bankr. D. Mont. Mar. 27, 2009) (Kirscher) (”Reasonsableness” of owning two homes may or may not be relevant to disposable income calculation depending on whether debtor has CMI greater or less than applicable median family income; citing Money v. i Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008), if debtor has CMI greater than applicable j median family income, then “mechanical test” applies and discretion to determine reasonableness of expenses is limited by BAPCPA. Omission of nonfiling spouse’s income from CMI calculation on Form B22C is not explained and outcome of that inquiry will determine whether debtor’s CMI is greater or less than applicable median family income.).

In re Coffin, 396 B.R. 804, 809 (Bankr. D. Me. 2008) (Haines) (Reasonableness and necessity standard applies to disallow deduction for ownership expenses of car owned free of lien. “The determinative standard for Chapter 13 debtors’ expenses is reasonableness and necessity. A non-expenditure . . . does not qualify.”).