With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". finding has support in the record, as Trial Exhibit F specifically reflects Bronsdon’s uncontested claim that she pays $8.50 per month in car maintenance but that that figure did not include the $723.75 in brake repair. The Bankruptcy Court reasoned that Bronsdon’s actual car expenses would most accurately be calculated if single, large expenses, such as the brake repair, were divided by 12 and added into the monthly routine maintenance figure. Such a finding is firmly grounded in the actual expenses reflected in the record and is not, therefore, clearly erroneous. The cases relied upon by ECMC do not hold otherwise, but rather relate to instances in which there were no past expenses in the record upon which to base the estimate. See In re Smith, 328 B.R. 605, 613 (1st Cir. BAP 2005)(<HOLDING>); In re Lorenz, 337 B.R. 423, 433 (1st Cir. BAP

A: holding imputation was not proper when the record did not show that such expenses had been incurred in the past
B: holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred
C: holding that prejudgment interest may properly be added to damage awards for past lost wages medical expenses that have been incurred and past pain and suffering but not future loss of earnings future medical expenses andor future pain and suffering
D: holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid
A.