Posted by NCBRC - November 2nd, 2019
In an opinion that reads like a father chastising his ungrateful children, the District Court for the Western District of Texas scolded the debtors for their proposed treatment of anticipated tax refunds and required them to adhere to the District Plan under which they could retain up to $2,000 of their refunds, but must turn over to the Trustee any amount remaining as disposable income. Vega v. Viegelahn, No. 18-796 and Diaz v. Viegelahn, No. 18-798 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019) (consolidated for argument and decision).
Contrary to the District Plan structure, the debtors in this case sought to amortize their tax refunds as income over one year. Upon objection by the trustee, the debtors ultimately amended their plans to conform to the District Plan. They then appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order of confirmation arguing that the District Plan’s treatment of the tax refunds violated various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Local Rules and the Official Forms. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 29th, 2019
The en banc fourth circuit panel overturned a twenty-two-year-old precedent to join the majority of courts finding that section 1322(c)(2) “authorizes modification of covered homestead mortgage claims, not just payments, including bifurcation of undersecured homestead mortgages into secured and unsecured components.” Hurlburt v. Black, No. 17-2449 (4th Cir. May 24, 2019) (en banc). NACBA and NCBRC participated as amici in support of the debtor.
In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (In re Witt), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that section 1322(c)(2)’s exception to the anti-modification provision in section 1322(b)(2) was limited to permitting a chapter 13 debtor to extend the final payments on his mortgage over the course of the plan even though the terms of the lending agreement would have those payments due earlier. Thus, the Witt court found that section 1322(c)(2) does not permit a chapter 13 debtor to modify the amount owed on the claim by bifurcating the claim into secured and unsecured portions, but could alter only the timing of payments on that claim. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 8th, 2019
The Eighth Circuit found no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s finding that, under Iowa common law, the chapter 13 debtors’ manufactured home was personal property and therefore the debt it secured was not subject to section 1322(b)’s anti-modification provision. The Paddock, LLC v. Bennett, No. 18-2098 (Feb. 28, 2019).
Benjamin and Teresia Bennett purchased a manufactured home from Paddock, and placed it on a lot owned by Paddock under a 990-year lease. In their chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Bennetts proposed to bifurcate the debt secured by the manufactured home into secured and unsecured portions under section 506(a)(1). Paddock objected arguing that the home was real property and the interest was subject to the anti-modification provision of section 1322(b). The bankruptcy court found that, under Iowa law, the home was personal property and confirmed the plan. In re Bennett, 2017 WL 1417221 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 20, 2017). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In re Bennett, 584 B.R. 15 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2018). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 31st, 2019
In Brown v. Viegelahn, No.18-282 the District Court for the Western District of Texas, on its own motion, certified an appeal to the Fifth Circuit to resolve a dispute among lower courts concerning the so-called Molina language in which a chapter 13 debtor paying less that his entire disposable income to his 100% plan, is required to agree that he will not later modify the plan to pay less than 100% to unsecured creditors. (appeal certified, Jan. 22, 2019). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 2nd, 2019
A bankruptcy court lacks the power to require a chapter 13 debtor to include a plan provision pledging to pay into the plan the cash equivalent of any non-cash property obtained post-confirmation. Roseberry v. U.S. Trustee, No. 18-1039 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2018). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 15th, 2018
Any conflict between Arizona’s Local Plan Form and the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement relating to a chapter 13 debtor’s obligation to file post-confirmation tax returns was not significant and the debtors here could not confirm a plan that failed to comply with the Local Form. In re Reichard, No. 16-12633 (Bankr. D. Ariz. July 5, 2018).
In their motion to set confirmation hearing, chapter 13 debtors, John and Ericka Rae Reichard, included a stipulated order of confirmation (SOC) under which they proposed to pay creditor, Harley Davidson, $6,255, consistent with Harley Davidson’s proof of claim but less than the amount the debtors had proposed in their plan. The SOC also included a provision for submitting post-confirmation tax returns to the court, in accordance with section 521(f), rather than directly to the trustee as required by Arizona Local Plan Form. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 2nd, 2018
A bankruptcy court may not deny confirmation of a debtor’s chapter 13 plan in the absence of objection by the trustee or unsecured creditor, based on its belief that the debtor miscalculated her disposable income. Briggs v. Johns (In re Briggs), No. 17-1080 (W.D. La. Sept. 28, 2018).
In calculating her disposable income, chapter 13 debtor, Marlea Briggs, deducted $913.00 as mortgage or rental expenses based on the IRS Local Standard. Though no one objected to the plan, the bankruptcy court scheduled a hearing and denied confirmation sua sponte. The court required Ms. Briggs to file a new plan calculating her income using her actual mortgage payments of $438.20. The court then confirmed the plan over Ms. Briggs’s objection. She appealed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 17th, 2018
“In this Court’s view, attorney fees, which are governed by 11 U.S.C. § 328, should not be intertwined with § 1325(b)(1)’s requirement that debtors pay either 100% of general unsecured claims or all of their disposable income.” In re Jones, No. 17-40497, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 1244 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. April 26, 2018).
Chapter 13 debtor, Gary Jones, proposed to pay secured creditors directly, and pay into the plan $100.00 per month with that amount going first to pay his attorney’s and the trustee’s fees in full, and then to pay 7.4% to his general unsecured creditors. Despite the fact that the attorney’s fees were below the court-approved no-look fee and that Mr. Jones could not afford to pay more into the plan, the trustee objected to confirmation on the basis that the plan was not filed in good faith.
Applying a totality of the circumstances inquiry into the issue of good faith, the court overruled the trustee’s objection. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 27th, 2018
In confirming the debtor’s chapter 13 plan, the bankruptcy court noted that “[a] debtor’s attorney fees are considered to be administrative priority claims and have priority above other claims . . .[under section] 507(a)(2).” In re Amaya, No. 17-70280 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 11, 2018).
In Evette Amaya’s chapter 13 bankruptcy, Propel Financial Services, LLC., filed a proof of claim in the amount of $25,303.63 secured by a tax lien on Ms. Amaya’s homestead. Ms. Amaya proposed a plan providing for two monthly payments in the amount of $1,100, and the remaining fifty eight monthly payments in the amount of $1,200. The plan specified that both Ms. Amaya’s counsel, to whom she owed $2,968.00 and Propel would be paid pro rata from month one through month fifty eight of the plan. The plan also provided that, subject to disposition of an avoidance motion, secured creditors would retain their liens. The trustee had her own internal distribution procedures under which she would pay Ms. Amaya’s counsel prior to other creditors. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 11th, 2018
The Bankruptcy Court did not err when it confirmed a plan in which the debtor prorated her expected Earned Income Tax Credit and offset the income with projected reasonably necessary expenses. Marshall v. Blake (In re Blake), No. 17-2809 (7th Cir. March 22, 2018).
Below-median chapter 13 debtor, Denise Blake, proposed a plan under which she pledged her federal tax refunds but retained any Earned Income Tax Credit. Notwithstanding that Ms. Blake worked full-time, lived in subsidized housing and had three dependent children, the trustee objected, arguing that Ms. Blake must count the EITC as income and include it in her plan payments. The bankruptcy court ultimately confirmed a plan over the trustee’s objection in which Ms. Blake treated the tax credit as income prorated over the course of the year and offset it with reasonable expenses. Read More
