National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center

Protecting The Rights Of Consumer Debtors In Bankruptcy

_9th Circuit

by on

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Disposable Income Exclusions for Chapter 13 Debtors Concerning Voluntary Contributions to Retirement Plans

Facts

Jorden Marie Saldana, a surgical technician earning approximately $101,776 annually, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy to reorganize her finances and address over $64,000 in unpaid taxes and unsecured debts. In calculating her disposable income, Saldana excluded $747 per month in voluntary contributions to her employer-managed retirement plan.

The Chapter 13 trustee objected, arguing that voluntary retirement contributions constitute disposable income under the Bankruptcy Code and must be applied to repay creditors. The bankruptcy court agreed, sustaining the trustee’s objection and requiring Saldana to adjust her Chapter 13 plan. Saldana appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. Saldana then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Analysis

The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower courts, holding that voluntary contributions to employer-managed retirement plans are excluded from disposable income under Chapter 13. The court relied on the “hanging paragraph” in 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(7), which explicitly states that such contributions “shall not constitute disposable income as defined in section 1325(b)(2).”

The Ninth Circuit emphasized that the statutory language is unambiguous, allowing Chapter 13 debtors to exclude any amount of voluntary contributions to qualified retirement plans from their disposable income calculations. This interpretation aligns with Congress’s intent in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) of 2005, which sought to protect retirement savings while encouraging Chapter 13 reorganizations.

The court rejected alternative interpretations that would limit the exclusion to pre-petition contributions or cap it based on historical contribution levels. It also dismissed concerns about debtor abuse, noting that Chapter 13’s good faith requirements and other safeguards adequately address potential misuse of the exclusion.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Saldana reinforces the broad protections for retirement contributions in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. By excluding voluntary contributions from disposable income, the ruling encourages debtors to maintain long-term financial stability while reorganizing their debts.

NCBRC and NACBA filed an amici brief in support of the debtor

In re Saldana – 9th Circuit

Amici Curiae Brief of NCBRC-NACBA

by on

The 9th Circuit Confirms that Chapter 13 Debtors Have an Absolute Right to Dismiss

In TICO Constr. Co. v. Van Meter (In re Powell), Case No. 22-60052 (9th Cir. October 1, 2024) the court considered whether a debtor has an absolute right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b), even if the debtor is potentially ineligible for Chapter 13 relief at the time of filing due to bad faith.

 Holding: 

The court held that a debtor has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss their Chapter 13 bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b), regardless of bad faith allegations or ineligibility for Chapter 13 relief at the time of filing.

 Facts:

Powell, the debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  TICO Construction Company, a creditor, challenged Powell’s eligibility for Chapter 13 relief, asserting that he should proceed under a different chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. Powell sought to dismiss his case under § 1307(b) voluntarily, and the bankruptcy court granted his request. The key issue was whether Powell could dismiss his Chapter 13 case despite his alleged ineligibility.

The case was decided based on a disputed interpretation of the law, particularly whether Powell’s eligibility for Chapter 13 impacted his right to voluntary dismissal under § 1307(b).

 Analysis:

The court focused on the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b), which gives a debtor the right to dismiss their Chapter 13 case as long as they meet four requirements: they request dismissal, they are a debtor, the case is under Chapter 13, and the case has not been converted to another chapter under Title 11. The court held that Powell met these requirements, and thus had an absolute right to dismiss his case, regardless of his eligibility for Chapter 13 relief or whether he had filed the petition in bad faith.

The court relied on the precedent set in Nichols v. Marana Stockyard & Livestock Market, Inc. (In re Nichols), which similarly recognized the debtor’s right to dismissal under § 1307(b). The majority emphasized that a debtor’s certification of eligibility when filing under Chapter 13 is presumptively valid and that any challenge to eligibility does not negate the debtor’s right to voluntary dismissal.

In contrast, Judge Collins dissented, arguing that eligibility for Chapter 13 relief is a precondition for the rights and procedures afforded, including the right to voluntary dismissal. According to Collins, Powell’s ineligibility for Chapter 13 should have led the court to deny his request for dismissal and instead convert the case to a different chapter. However, the majority rejected this view, prioritizing the plain language of § 1307(b) over any concerns about eligibility or bad faith at the time of filing.

NCBRC submitted an amicus brief in support of the debtor/appellee.

In re Powell – 9th Circuit Opinion 10-1-24

NCBRCs Amicus Brief In Support of Appellee

by on

The 9th Circuit Holds A Homestead Exemption Is Limited to Statutory Cap in a Chapter 11 to 7 Conversion

The Ninth Circuit held that the failure to object to a claimed homestead exemption within the 30-day period does not allow the debtor to exempt more than the statutory limit when the case originated as a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and included conflicting representations regarding the exemptions.

Facts

Monte and Rosana Masingale filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2015, claiming a homestead exemption of “100% of FMV” (fair market value) for their residence. No party in interest objected within the 30-day window. The case was later converted to Chapter 7, and the Masingales sought to sell the home and retain all proceeds, despite the statutory cap on the homestead exemption.

Analysis

The court’s legal analysis focused on whether the initial lack of objection to the homestead exemption claim allowed the Masingales to exempt more than the statutory limit. The court distinguished this case from Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz and Schwab v. Reilly, which involved different circumstances and did not originate in Chapter 11.

The court noted that the Masingales, as Chapter 11 debtors-in-possession, owed fiduciary duties to their creditors. During the Chapter 11 proceedings, they made representations in their Disclosure Statement and Chapter 11 Plan that they were not claiming above-limit exemptions or that such exemptions would only be allowed after creditors were fully paid. These representations indicated that the homestead exemption would be limited to the statutory cap, contrary to their Schedule C notation of “100% of FMV.”

The court reasoned that these conflicting representations within the 30-day objection period affected whether the “100% of FMV” notation created a clear and objectionable exemption. The court emphasized that the fiduciary duties and specific statements made in Chapter 11 documents provided context that negated the need for an early objection based solely on the Schedule C notation. Therefore, the initial failure to object did not permit the Masingales to claim an exemption above the statutory limit.

Tips

  1. Clarify Exemption Claims: Ensure that exemption claims are clear and consistent across all bankruptcy documents to avoid disputes and objections.
  2. Understand Fiduciary Duties: Recognize that debtors-in-possession in Chapter 11 have fiduciary duties to creditors, and their representations can impact exemption claims.
  3. Timely Objections: While objections to facially invalid exemptions should be timely, consider the entire context and any additional representations made by the debtor within the objection period.

NCBRC filed an amicus brief in support of the Debtors and provided a moot court to Debtors’ counsel to prepare for oral arguments.

Masingale 9th Circuit Opinion

NACBA-NCBRC Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee

by on

The 9th Circuit Reviews Whether Res Judicata Applies to Exemptions

The 9th Circuit Court in Nance v Warfield is considering whether to overrule the District Court of Nevada which held that the bankruptcy court erred in overruling the trustee’s res judicata-based objection to the debtor’s federal exemptions in the property and RV. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority by sua sponte granting an exemption for the RV under the federal wildcard exemption.

Facts

Lawrence Warfield, the trustee of Johnie Lee Nance’s bankruptcy estate, objected to Nance’s claimed exemptions for his property and RV under Arizona law. After the court sustained the trustee’s objections, Nance amended his schedule to claim exemptions under Washington law, and the trustee again objected. When those objections were sustained, Nance amended his schedule to claim federal exemptions. The bankruptcy court overruled the trustee’s objections to these federal exemptions and sua sponte granted an exemption for the RV under the federal wildcard exemption.

Analysis

The district court analyzed the applicability of res judicata to the debtor’s successive exemption claims. It noted that claim preclusion, a form of res judicata, bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action. The court applied the three-part test for claim preclusion: identity of claims, final judgment on the merits, and identity or privity between parties. The court found that the debtor’s claims for exemptions in the property and RV, regardless of the legal framework (Arizona, Washington, or federal law), arose from the same nucleus of operative facts and involved the same property. Therefore, the claims were identical.

The court also determined that the previous rulings sustaining the trustee’s objections constituted final judgments on the merits, satisfying the second criterion. Finally, the parties involved in the objections were identical, fulfilling the third requirement for claim preclusion. Consequently, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in overruling the trustee’s objections based on res judicata.

Additionally, the court addressed the bankruptcy court’s sua sponte action to grant an exemption for the RV under the federal wildcard exemption. The court emphasized the principle of party presentation, which requires courts to decide only the questions presented by the parties. The court found that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority by granting an exemption that the debtor had not claimed, noting that the debtor, represented by counsel, could have asserted the exemption but did not. Therefore, the court held that the bankruptcy court’s action was improper and reversed its decision.

NCBRC and NACBA filed an amicus brief in support of the Debtor/Appellant.

Warfield v Nance Amici Brief NACBA-NCBRC

by on

The Ninth Circuit Considers Whether the Social Security Administration Can Recoup Overpayments Without Violating the Discharge Injunction

In In re Cooper, Case No. 24-1084 (9th Cir. 2024) the Ninth Circuit is determining whether the Ninth Circuit B.A.P. erred when it held that the Social Security Administration (SSA) could recoup an overpayment of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits from Darrin Cooper’s ongoing SSDI payments, without violating the discharge injunction in bankruptcy.

Darrin Cooper was overpaid SSDI benefits due to an administrative error, receiving $73,112.90 more than he was entitled to because the SSA did not account for his concurrent workers’ compensation benefits. After filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and receiving a discharge, Cooper discovered the overpayment and the SSA began deducting the overpaid amount from his ongoing SSDI payments.

The B.A.P.’s legal analysis focused on the equitable doctrine of recoupment, which allows a creditor to offset a debtor’s claim with a counterclaim arising from the same transaction. The court applied the “logical relationship test” to determine whether the overpayment and ongoing SSDI payments arose from the same transaction. The court found that both the overpayment and the ongoing payments stemmed from Cooper’s entitlement to SSDI benefits, establishing a strong logical relationship. Therefore, the SSA’s actions did not violate the discharge injunction. The court distinguished this case from others where recoupment was denied, such as in In re Madigan, by emphasizing that Cooper’s SSDI payments did not involve separate disability periods or different reimbursement agreements. Instead, Cooper’s ongoing SSDI entitlement and the overpayment were part of a continuous disability claim, thereby satisfying the same transaction requirement. The court also noted that Cooper did not seek available remedies under the Social Security Act, such as requesting a waiver or appealing the overpayment decision, which could have addressed his financial concerns.

Both NCBRC and NACBA submitted an amicus brief in support of the Debtor.

In re Cooper – Appellants Brief

In re Cooper – NCBRC-NACBA Amicus Brief

by on

9th Circuit to Address Whether a Debtor May Deduct Voluntary Retirement Deductions to Determine Disposable Income

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that a Chapter 13 debtor, in calculating projected disposable income, is not permitted to deduct the amount of voluntary retirement plan contributions even where the debtor was making the contributions prepetition. The debtor’s appeal from adverse decisions below.

APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS AND NATIONAL CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY RIGHTS CENTER

by on

The Ninth Circuit Considers Whether Appellate Rights are Property of the Estate

In In re Lopez, Case No. 23-55682 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the bankruptcy court erred in (1) ruling that the Chapter 7 debtor’s right to appeal a prepetition personal injury judgment against her was property of the estate, (2) denying the debtor’s motion for the Chapter 7 trustee’s abandonment of the appeal rights, and (3) denying the debtor’s motion for reconsideration.

NCBRC filed an amicus brief requesting that the court narrowly confine its ruling to the specific facts of the case.  The concern is that a broad ruling will have a significant impact in other factual situations.

The fact that something has monetary value is not sufficient, by itself, to make it property of the estate. Just as no one would argue that a debtor’s kidneys should be property of the estate because they could have monetary value, it is not difficult to find many examples of situations in which classifying a right to appeal as property, simply because a trustee could sell it, would be extremely problematic. A debtor could be involved in a hotly-contested custody case, where a very questionable decision was appealed. The opposing party, perhaps far wealthier than the debtor, could offer to buy from the trustee the debtor’s right to appeal for more than the debtor could afford, thus ending the appeal. Similarly, a debtor could be involved in a contested divorce, in which a clearly erroneous support order for $100,000, which would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), was entered against the debtor. In that situation, too, the opposing party could offer the trustee $10,000 for the right to appeal, cutting off any review of the support order and leaving the debtor with a $100,000 debt after bankruptcy.

And such situations are not limited to family law matters. A debtor could be appealing an erroneous criminal conviction. The alleged crime victim, or even a prosecutor trying to save the costs of appeal, could purchase the debtor’s right to appeal from a bankruptcy trustee, perhaps causing the debtor to be imprisoned for years.  Or the debtor might be appealing an erroneous judgment or other decision that would lead to loss of a professional license, which would severely impair the debtor’s fresh start.

The loss of a debtor’s right to appeal could also lead to large debts becoming nondischargeable in bankruptcy when, in fact, they should be discharged. For example, a debtor could erroneously be found liable for a large amount in a fraud judgment that, if not reversed, would result in a nondischargeability determination under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 111 S. Ct. 654 (1991) (collateral estoppel applies in dischargeability determination). If the plaintiff could pay the bankruptcy trustee for the debtor’s right to appeal, and then dismiss the appeal, the debt would not be discharged.

In all these situations, and undoubtedly many others, the fact that a right may have monetary value to the bankruptcy estate, and could be sold by the trustee, should not, by itself, make that right property.

The amicus brief for NCBRC and NACBA is here:  Lopez amicus brief v4

by on

The Ninth Circuit Reviews Whether an Exemption of “100% of FMV” Protects the Entire Value of the Property Including any Post-Petition Appreciation

UPDATE: The Ninth Circuit has since decided this case. Click here to read our article discussing their ruling.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether an exemption of “100% of FMV” protects all the equity in the property, over and above the allowable exemption, and any appreciation in value post-petition.  The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court and found that an exemption claim of “100% of FMV” included the entire value of the property, not the allowable exemption. Further, the court held that this exemption claim included any post-petition appreciation because there was no objection to the exemption.  Masingale v. Munding, 644 B.R. 530 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2022).  The BAP held:

“Monte L. Masingale and Rosana D. Masingale filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and claimed a “100% of FMV [fair market value]” exemption in their homestead. No one objected. Years later, the bankruptcy court converted the case to chapter 7. Mrs. Masingale and the chapter 7 trustee disputed the amount of the homestead exemption to which Mrs. Masingale was entitled: the chapter 7 trustee argued that she was bound by the statutory limit under § 522(d)(1), but Mrs. Masingale contended that she was entitled to the entire fair market value of the property, because no one had objected to the claimed homestead exemption. The bankruptcy court agreed with the chapter 7 trustee and approved his request to sell the property, limiting the homestead exemption to $45,950.

“Mrs. Masingale appeals, arguing that the bankruptcy court erred in determining the amount of the homestead exemption. We agree with Mrs. Masingale. We REVERSE the portions of the order on appeal that determine the amount of the homestead exemption and REMAND. We publish to explain the effect of a “100% of FMV” exemption claim and to reiterate that parties must timely object to any improper exemption claim, no matter how frivolous. …

“As a matter of first impression, we hold that the Masingales’ claim of an exemption equal to “100% of FMV” includes postpetition appreciation and becomes incontestable if there is no timely objection. The snapshot rule is one of the limits on a debtor’s entitlement to exemptions. Taylor holds that, if no one objects, the debtor can get the benefit of exemptions to which the debtor is not entitled. In other words, in order to get the benefit of the snapshot rule, a trustee or party in interest must object to an exemption claim that contradicts that rule.”

The case is tentatively set for oral argument in early December 2023.

Appellant Trustee Munding Brief

Appellee Masingale Brief

NCBRC Amicus Brief In Support of Appellee – Masingale

Appellant Trustee Munding Reply Brief

by on

The 9th Circuit Considers Whether a Chapter 13 Debtor Has A Statutory Right to Dismiss

UPDATE: The Ninth Circuit has since decided this case. Click here to read our article discussing their ruling.

The Ninth Circuit is considering whether a chapter 13 debtor’s statutory right to dismiss his bankruptcy is precluded by bad faith or ineligibility under section 109(e). Judgment creditor TICO Construction Company, Inc. (“TICO”) objecte to the debtor’s motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Powell did not have an absolute right to dismiss his case because he was abusing the bankruptcy process and was not eligible to be a chapter 13 debtor. TICO argued that the bankruptcy court should instead convert the case to one under chapter 7. The bankruptcy court disagreed with TICO’s analysis and dismissed the case.  The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed in TICO Constr. Co. v. Van Meter (In re Powell), 644 B.R. 181 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2022).

TICO appealed the BAP to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

TICO Construction, a judgment creditor in the debtor’s chapter 13 case, opposed the debtor’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his bankruptcy under section 1307(b). TICO alleged both that the debtor’s unsecured debts exceeded the debt limit set forth in section 109(e), and that the debtor abused by the bankruptcy process by transferring non-exempt assets to his ex-wife in “sham” divorce proceedings. TICO requested that, instead of granting the debtor’s motion to dismiss, the court should convert the case to chapter 7 or 11.

The bankruptcy court found that with one statutory exception that was inapplicable, the debtor had an absolute right to dismiss his case and granted the debtor’s motion. TICO appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit.

The panel began with section 1307(b), which provides: “On request of the debtor at any time, if the case has not been converted under section 706, 1112, or 1208 of this title, the court shall dismiss a case under this chapter. Any waiver of the right to dismiss under this subsection is unenforceable.”

The question before the panel was whether the debtor’s right to dismiss his chapter 13 bankruptcy was circumscribed either by bad faith or by his ineligibility to be in chapter 13. In Jacobsen v. Moser (In re Jacobsen), 609 F.3d 647, 660 (5th Cir. 2010), the court held that a debtor’s bad faith precludes voluntary dismissal of his chapter 13 case. While the Ninth Circuit at one time agreed with that conclusion, it changed its view in Nichols v. Marana Stockyard & Livestock Market, Inc. (In re Nichols), 10 F.4th 956 (9th Cir. 2021), where it found the debtor’s right to dismiss was subject only to the exception included in the statute itself. The panel noted that Nichols was based on the decision in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014), where the Court held that the bankruptcy court could not override explicit mandates of the Code.

Because bad faith was not included in the statutory exceptions to the debtor’s right to dismiss, the panel found the bankruptcy court did not err in that finding.

TICO next argued that the debtor exceeded the debt limit for chapter 13 and therefore his case should have been treated as if it were chapter 7 with the court considering his motion to dismiss in terms of the best interests of creditors. The panel disagreed, finding that if it did as TICO requested it would create a new exception to the debtor’s right to dismiss under section 1307(b) and that would go directly against the holding in Law.

The panel noted that in FDIC v. Wenberg (In re Wenberg), 94 B.R. 631 (9th Cir. BAP 1988), aff’d, 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1990), it held that the debt limit in section 109(e) is not jurisdictional, and a bankruptcy court is not required to dismiss a chapter 13 case when the debtor is found ineligible under section 109(e), but may allow the debtor to convert to chapter 7. The court reasoned that if an ineligible chapter 13 debtor retains his right to convert, his right to dismiss also remains intact.

In response to TICO’s argument that the debtor should not be allowed to get away with his bad faith conduct, the panel pointed to other methods for addressing bad faith including denying the debtor’s right to refile, or to apply other sanctions under section 105(b).

No oral argument date has yet been set by the court.

Appellant TICOs Brief

Appellee Powells Brief

NCBRCs Amicus Brief In Support of Appellee

Appellant TICOs Reply Brief

by on

The 9th Circuit Adopts NCBRC and NACBA’s Amici Argument Holding A Chapter 13 Trustee May Not Collect A Percentage Fee If A Chapter 13 Case Is Dismissed Before Confirmation

On June 12, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 11 U.S.C. § 1326(b) requires a Chapter 13 trustee to turnover all plan payments to the Debtor upon dismissal before confirmation, without deducting her statutory fee. See Steedman v. McCallister (In re Evans), No. 22-35216, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14571 (9th Cir. June 12, 2023).

The court agreed with the interpretation of the law submitted by the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

“The better approach, as proposed by amicus National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center and National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NCBRC), is to read 28 U.S.C. § 586 and 11 U.S.C. § 1326 together. … We generally agree with NCBRC’s construction of the relevant statutes, which renders harmonious an otherwise fragmented scheme.”

Joining the Tenth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held that the trustee was not entitled to a percentage fee of plan payments as compensation for her work in the Chapter 13 case. 28 U.S.C. § 586(e)(2) provides that the trustee shall “collect” the percentage fee from “payments . . . under plans” that she receives. 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) provides for the debtor to make payments in the amount “proposed by the plan to the trustee.” Section 1326(a)(2) provides that the trustee shall retain these payments “until confirmation or denial of confirmation.” This section further provides that if a plan is not confirmed, the trustee shall return to the debtor any payments not previously paid to creditors and not yet due and owing to them. Section 1326(b) provides that, before or at the time of each payment to creditors under the plan, the trustee shall be paid the percentage fee under § 586(e)(2).

The court held that, reading these statutes together, “payments . . . under plans” in § 586 refers only to payments under confirmed plans. Before confirmation, a trustee does not “collect” or “collect and hold” fees under § 586, but instead “retains” payments “proposed by the plan” under § 1326(a)(2). If a plan is not confirmed, then § 1326(a)(2) requires a return to the debtor of payments “proposed by the plan.” If a plan is confirmed, then § 1326(b) provides for payment of the percentage fee to the trustee. Thus, under the plain meaning of the statutory text, a trustee is not paid her percentage fee if a plan is not confirmed. The court concluded that statutory canons of construction, such as the rule against superfluities, and the provisions’ amendment history confirmed its reading of the statutes. Policy arguments made by the trustee were not enough to overcome the plain language and context of the relevant statutory provisions.

The Second Circuit has this issue under consideration in Soussis v. Macco, Case No. 22-155 (2nd Circuit).  Also, the 7th Circuit has been asked to take up this issue on a direct appeal from In re Johnson, Case No. 22-04449 (Bankr. N.D. IL, May 12, 2023).

In re Evans – 9th CircuitEvans 

9th Cir NCBRC amicus July 2022