It is not bad faith for a debtor to fail to move to modify her chapter 13 plan to take into account post-confirmation increased equity in her residential property. In re Garajau, 10-18478 (Bankr. D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2013). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 28th, 2013
It is not bad faith for a debtor to fail to move to modify her chapter 13 plan to take into account post-confirmation increased equity in her residential property. In re Garajau, 10-18478 (Bankr. D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2013). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 23rd, 2013
The mean-spirited, and legally insupportable approach to chapter 13 cases that led to denial of confirmation and dismissal of the debtor’s case in In re Mycek, has been reversed and remanded by the district court for the Central District of California. No. 12-369 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - September 16th, 2013
In In re Gandy, No. 11-30369 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. July 12, 2013), the court found that a creditor had no standing under section 707(b) to seek dismissal of a chapter 7 petition, after conversion from chapter 13, where debtor’s petition documents showed him to be below-median. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 4th, 2012
The Northern District of California upheld a finding of bad faith for debtor’s chapter 13 fee-only plan. In re Ingram, No. 11-408 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012). The plan proposed to maintain payments on first mortgage, strip off the second wholly unsecured mortgage, and pay only attorney and administrative fees. The debtor later filed an amended plan proposing to make lower payments for a longer duration while still paying nothing to unsecured creditors. The Bankruptcy Court raised the issue of good faith sua sponte.
The district court found that the bankruptcy court applied the appropriate “totality of the circumstances” standard as set forth in Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt), 171 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1999) and Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1982). It noted, however, that a “veiled chapter 7” plan is rarely proposed in good faith. Though the court teetered on the edge of a per se rule against such plans, it did not step over that edge.
The debtor’s downfall here appears to have been the fact that when he amended his plan to lower payments but extend the duration, he refused to explain to the bankruptcy court why he could not maintain the higher payments and pay something to unsecured creditors. The court found that the original proposed plan indicated that the debtor could afford to pay more into the plan without regard to duration and the debtor failed to counter that inference.
Lesson: where fee-only plans are generally disfavored, it is perhaps wise not to antagonize the court when trying to confirm one.
Posted by NCBRC - August 21st, 2012
In good news for bankruptcy debtors who cannot afford to file chapter 7 or for whom chapter 7 is otherwise impracticable, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the debtor’s “fee-only” chapter 13 plan finding that such plan are not per se bad faith. Sikes v. Crager (In re Crager), No. 11-30982 (5th Cir. August 16, 2012), rev’g, W.D. La. 10-1863 (Sept. 30, 2011). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 10th, 2012
The Ninth Circuit BAP found that the requirement of section 1325(b) that all of the debtor’s projected disposable be paid into the plan during the applicable commitment period, is not incorporated into section 1329 for plan modification. In re Mattson, No. 11-1478 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. April 5, 2012). Read More
 
NCBRC needs your support to protect the rights of consumer bankruptcy debtors. The most effective way to support NCBRC is with a direct donation.
There are many other ways to give to NRBRC:
iGive.com: When you purchase items at over 1,400 online stores, a percentage of your purchase will be donated to NCBRC. Stores include Macy’s, Melissa and Doug, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nike, Petsmart, and more. Shop and Give today!
The Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act of 2019 (“HAVEN Act”) excludes certain benefits paid to veterans or their family members from the definition of current monthly income (“CMI”) found in the Bankruptcy Code. The HAVEN Act amends § 101(10A) of the Bankruptcy Code and supplements the 2005 amendments to the Code that excluded other government benefits, such as social security income.
This Guide provides an overview of the HAVEN Act identifies benefits that are excluded, and answers frequently asked questions.
Thank you to the following organizations without whose support our work would not be possible.
American College of Bankruptcy
The American College of Bankruptcy is an honorary public service association of bankruptcy and insolvency professionals who are invited to join as Fellows based on a proven record of the highest standards of professionalism plus service to the profession and their communities. Together with its affiliated Foundation, the College is the largest financial supporter of bankruptcy and insolvency-related pro bono legal service programs in the United States.
NACBA
The only national organization dedicated to serving the needs of consumer bankruptcy attorneys and protecting the rights of consumer debtors in bankruptcy. Formed in 1992, NACBA has more than 3,000 members located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
O. Max Gardner Foundation, Inc.
The O. Max Gardner Foundation, Inc. provides financial support to institutions devoted to charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes. NCBRC has been a recipient of grant awards from the foundation.