The debtor’s proposed amendment to file her chapter 11 petition under the newly enacted SBRA under which only the debtor could have a plan confirmed, would unduly prejudice the mortgage creditor who expended a great deal of time, expense, and effort to negotiate and obtain approval of its own plan. Ventura v. Gregory Funding, No. 20-1949 (E.D.N.Y. April 21, 2022). Read More
Tag Archive: Plan confirmation
-
Chapter 11 Debtor’s Amendment to File under SBRA Would Prejudice Creditor
Posted by NCBRC - May 16th, 2022
-
Provision for Balloon Payment after Sale Precludes Confirmation
Posted by NCBRC - April 15th, 2022
In a consolidated opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the “equal payment provision of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) is best read to prohibit confirmation of a sale plan, over the objection of a secured creditor holding a mortgage of a principal residence, that contemplates periodic payments followed by a lump-sum payment.” In re Materne, No. 20-40027, and In re Gnaman, No. 19-40930 (Bankr. D. Mass. April 7, 2022). Read More
-
Split on Chapter 13 Trustee Retention of Fees in Unconfirmed Cases Deepens
Posted by NCBRC - February 14th, 2022
Deepening the split among lower courts, in McCallister v. Evans, et al., No. 20-112 (D. Ida. Feb. 8, 2022). Chief Judge Nye of the District of Idaho, held that the chapter 13 trustee is entitled to retain her commission on funds collected from the debtors even though the debtors’ case was dismissed prior to confirmation. While recognizing the split of authority, the court followed in the footsteps of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in favoring the language of 28 U.S.C. § 586(e)(2) and dodging the clear textual differences between section 1326(a)(2)—applicable in chapter 13—and section 1226(a)(2)—applicable in chapter 12. Read More
-
Pre-Petition Increase in Retirement Account Contributions
Posted by NCBRC - December 9th, 2021
A chapter 13 debtor’s post-petition contributions to his qualified retirement account may be deducted from the calculation of his projected disposable income and the amount of those contributions is presumed to be the average contribution made during the six months preceding bankruptcy. Where, as here, the debtor substantially increased his contributions on the eve of bankruptcy, he bears the burden of proving that his projected disposable income calculation should be reduced by the increased retirement account contributions. In re Huston, 2021 WL 4528883 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2021) (case no. 20-81689). Read More
-
Standing Trustee Must Return Fee if Plan Not Confirmed
Posted by NCBRC - December 7th, 2021
The standing chapter 13 trustee must return his percentage fee to the debtor when the debtor’s plan is not confirmed. Doll v. Goodman (In re Doll), No. 21-731 (D. Colo. Dec. 6, 2021).
The debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy and made $29,900 in plan payments to the standing trustee prior to confirmation. Of that amount, $19,800 went to his counsel, $7,503.30 was disbursed to the Colorado Department of Revenue on a priority tax claim, and the remaining $2,596.70 was retained by the standing trustee as part of his statutory 10% trustee fee. The plan was not confirmed and the bankruptcy court allowed the trustee to retain his fee over the debtor’s objection. The debtor appealed to the district court. Read More
-
Debtor Need Not Provide for Secured Claim in Plan
Posted by NCBRC - December 2nd, 2021
Nothing in the Code requires a debtor to provide for a claim secured by his principal residence in his chapter 13 plan. In re Jones, 2021 WL 4465554 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. Sept. 29, 2021) (case no. 20-03607).
When he filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, the debtor listed food stamps and VA disability benefits as his only source of income. He also listed his principal residence as securing a debt to Bank of New York Mellon (BONY). The debtor’s second amended proposed plan omitted any provision for BONY’s claim relating to the residence. The plan also specified that the debtor could sell the property without notice to the court or the chapter 13 trustee. BONY objected to confirmation arguing that section 1325(a) required the debtor to provide for its secured claim in the plan. The trustee also objected to confirmation on feasibility grounds and because of the provision relating to non-notification in the event of sale. The standing chapter 13 trustee filed an amicus brief on the issue of notice and on the grounds that the debtor’s failure to treat the secured claim in his plan violated section 1325(a)(3) and (5). Read More
-
No Mortgage Modification for Mixed Use Property
Posted by NCBRC - October 21st, 2021
The chapter 11 debtor could not modify her residential mortgage even though much of the property securing the mortgage was used for income-producing purposes. Lee v. U.S. Nat’l Bank Ass’n, No. 20-222 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 4, 2021).
The debtor’s residence was located on forty-three acres of land of which she rented out approximately thirty-five acres as farmland. She took out a mortgage on the property in 2007 and, acting on the advice of the mortgagee, in 2010, allowed the mortgage to go into default in the expectation of refinancing the loan under the federal Housing Action Resource Test (HART). When she was unable to refinance, she filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy seeking to modify the mortgage.
US National Bank filed a claim as trustee for RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT (the Trust), in the amount of $253,070.25, representing $139,195.75 in unpaid principal and $82,228.15 in interest. It moved for relief from stay, and the bankruptcy court granted the motion finding that section 1123(b)(5) prohibited modification of the mortgage. The debtor appealed to the district court. Read More
-
District Court Upholds Local Rule Requiring Statements of Compliance
Posted by NCBRC - August 20th, 2021
Finding the requirement to be procedural rather than substantive, the District Court for the Northern District of California upheld the district’s General Order requiring chapter 13 bankruptcy debtors who elect to pay their mortgages directly rather than through the trustee to submit regular notifications of compliance to the bankruptcy court. Gordon v. Bronitsky (In re Gordon), No. 21-643 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021). Read More
-
Debtor Loses the Battle but Wins the War
Posted by NCBRC - April 23rd, 2021
A confirmed plan binds the county tax creditor even though the plan did not provide for the interest claimed in its post-confirmation proof of claim where the county had notice of the plan and failed to object to confirmation. In re Bird, 624 B.R. 841 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2021) (case no. 1:17-bk-2072). Read More
-
TitleMax Can’t Have Its Cake and Eat it Too
Posted by NCBRC - April 21st, 2021
TitleMax waived its right to forfeiture under a title pawn transaction when it failed to object to treatment of the loan as a secured debt prior to confirmation of the debtor’s plan. TitleMax of Alabama v. Deakle, No. 20-335 (S.D. Ala. March 31, 2021).
Prior to filing for bankruptcy, the debtor entered into a title pawn transaction with TitleMax. The pawn matured and the grace period for redemption expired before the debtor filed her chapter 13 petition. Her proposed plan provided for payments to TitleMax as a secured creditor. TitleMax raised no objection to the treatment of the loan until three months after the debtor’s plan was confirmed. At that time, TitleMax filed a motion to “confirm termination or absence of stay.” The bankruptcy court found that, by failing to object to confirmation, TitleMax had waived the forfeiture provision of Alabama’s Pawnshop Act and was bound by the terms of the confirmed plan under section 1327(a). Read More
-
Request Assistance
Request assistance with a case.
-
Help NCBRC
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!
-
HAVEN Act Guide
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.
-
Keep up with NCBRC
Thank you!
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.
Visit NACBA.org
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.