A mortgage refinance agreement approved by the court is not equivalent to a motion to modify under section 1329. The debtors, who failed to pay their property taxes directly as required by their plan were not entitled to discharge even though the mortgagee paid those taxes on their behalf and the debtors and mortgagee refinanced their lending agreement to encompass that change. In re Villarreal, No. 16-10106 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 12, 2022). Read More
Tag Archive: Plan modification
-
Failure to Pay Property Taxes Precludes Discharge
Posted by NCBRC - May 12th, 2022
-
“Effective Date of the Plan” for Best Interests Test upon Modification
Posted by NCBRC - July 28th, 2021
The best interests test does not provide authority to compel turnover through plan modification of settlement funds from the debtor’s post-petition personal injury case where that money would not be available to unsecured creditors in a case converted from chapter 13 to chapter 7 under section 348(f). In re Taylor, No. 16-40873 (Bankr. D. Kans. July 21, 2021). Read More
-
Modification under CARES Act
Posted by NCBRC - February 18th, 2021
For plan modification under the CARES Act, the debtor need not have been current in plan payments prior to enactment of the Act. In re Gilbert, No. 16-12120 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2020).
In four separate cases, debtors sought to modify their chapter 13 plans under section 1329(d) which Congress added to the Bankruptcy Code as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). In all four cases, the debtors’ plans were confirmed and they fell behind on payments prior to March 27, 2020. In three of the cases, the debtors sought modification of their plans to pay off the arrearages and extend the length of the plan beyond sixty months. In the fourth case, the debtor sought only to reduce payments to unsecured creditors. The trustee opposed the modifications arguing that the CARES Act permits modifications only if the debtors first fell behind in their plan payments after March 27, 2020, and the sole reason for the default was the pandemic.
The bankruptcy court disagreed. Read More
-
Change in Circumstances Not Required for Plan Modification
Posted by NCBRC - October 16th, 2020
A change in circumstances is not a pre-condition to modification of a confirmed chapter 13 plan under section 1329(a). Whaley v. Guillen (In re Guillen), No. 17-13899 (11th Cir. Aug. 25, 2020).
When the debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, she listed two creditors with security interests in her home. Her proposed plan included payments toward her bankruptcy attorney’s fee of $4,900, as well as a challenge to Wells Fargo’s junior lien. She then initiated an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid that lien. The debtor and Wells Fargo eventually settled the adversary complaint with Wells Fargo agreeing to be treated as an unsecured creditor. Finding that it met the statutory requirements, including section 1325’s “best interest of creditors” test, the bankruptcy court confirmed her plan. Read More
-
Trustee May Modify Plan to Capture Proceeds from Sale of Employee Stock Options
Posted by NCBRC - April 28th, 2020
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the chapter 13 trustee to modify the debtor’s plan to capture proceeds from the sale of stock options that the debtor received as part of his employment compensation. Berkley v. Burchard (In re Berkley), No. 19-1197 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. April 17, 2020).
Mr. Berkley’s chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April, 2015. In 2016, he became CEO of Antares Audio Technologies. Part of his compensation was receipt of stock options in the company. After he had completed 57 months of payments on his chapter 13 plan, Mr. Berkley notified the trustee that Antares was being sold and that his stock options would be bought out for $3.8 million. The trustee moved to modify the plan to incorporate a portion of the sale proceeds to pay off Mr. Berkley’s creditors at 100%. The bankruptcy court granted the motion to modify and Mr. Berkley appealed. Read More
-
Plan May Be Modified to Incorporate HAVEN Act Veteran’s Benefits Exclusions
Posted by NCBRC - March 23rd, 2020
The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that the debtor may modify her chapter 13 plan to reduce her plan payments based on the post-confirmation enactment of the HAVEN Act, which provides for exclusion of veteran’s disability benefits from CMI. In re Gresham, No. 18-56289 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. March 10, 2020).
In August, 2019, Congress enacted the Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act (HAVEN), which articulates an “express exclusion to CMI for certain compensation, pension, pay, annuity, or allowance paid ‘in connection with a disability, combat-related injury or disability, or death of a member of the uniformed services.’” The stated purpose of the amendment was to correct an “obvious inequity” in section 101(10A) which excludes social security benefits from CMI but not similar veteran’s benefits. As a result of the new legislation, the chapter 13 debtor here sought to modify her 100% chapter 13 plan to exclude those benefits from her CMI and reduce her monthly plan payments. The trustee objected, seeking the court’s direction as to the appropriate application of the HAVEN Act in light of the fact that it was enacted after the debtor’s plan was confirmed without objection. Read More
-
Debtor May Not Modify to Surrender Residence after 60 Month Plan Complete
Posted by NCBRC - June 7th, 2019
Debtors were precluded from modifying their plan to surrender their residence where the surrender was a “payment” under the plan and was beyond the sixty-month plan period. Derham-Burk v. Mrdutt (In re Mrdutt), No. 17-1256 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 6, 2019).
When chapter 13 debtors, Christina and David Mrdutt, filed their bankruptcy petition, Wells Fargo held two liens on their residence. The first lien was under-secured and the second wholly unsecured. The Mrdutts were also almost $65,000 in arrears on their mortgage. They proposed a plan providing for curing their mortgage arrearage either after loan modification or as proposed in a later plan modification. In the meantime, the Mrdutts agreed to maintain direct mortgage payments to Wells Fargo outside the plan.
The bankruptcy court confirmed their plan while their request to modify the primary mortgage was still pending with Wells Fargo. The Mrdutts made all 60 of their plan payments, but failed to maintain necessary direct payments to Wells Fargo. Ms. Mrdutt died of cancer during the bankruptcy, and Wells Fargo, being Wells Fargo, refused to discuss loan modification with Mr. Mrdutt because only Ms Mrdutt’s name was on the loan. Wells Fargo never approved a loan modification, and the mortgage arrears were not cured either through the plan or outside it. Read More
-
District Court Certifies Appeal of 100% Plan Language Restricting Right to Modify
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
-
Court Takes a Hard Line on Curing Direct Mortgage Payment Default
Posted by NCBRC - October 12th, 2017
A loan modification to cure a post-confirmation default on direct mortgage payments must be approved by the court prior to expiration of the chapter 13 plan. In re Hanley, 2017 WL 3575847, No. 11-76700 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. Aug. 14, 2017).
Brian and Anahi Hanley’s confirmed chapter 13 plan provided for cure of their mortgage default through the plan and for regular mortgage payments to be made directly to the mortgagee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. They fell behind on their direct mortgage payments and, several months before completion of their plan, they entered into a trial loan modification which would cure the post-confirmation default. Though the Hanleys made all payments under the loan modification, they failed to sign and return the Loan Modification Approval Letter within the time required by Nationstar.
At the expiration of their plan, Nationstar filed a Rule 3002.1 Response notifying the court of the default based on the loan as it stood prior to the trial loan modification. The trustee moved to dismiss their bankruptcy without discharge. The Hanley’s moved to strike Nationstar’s Response and sought to modify their plan to allow them to cure the default in accordance with the terms of the loan modification. Read More
-
Plan Modification to Surrender 910 Vehicle Permissible
Posted by NCBRC - September 8th, 2017
So long as the modification is proposed in good faith a debtor may modify a plan which originally provided for a “910 Claim” to be paid off in its entirety, to one in which she surrenders the vehicle and treats any deficiency as unsecured. In re Fayson, No. 16-10013 (Bankr. D. Del. July 13, 2017).
After experiencing maintenance problems and a dispute relating to an undelivered warranty on her 910 vehicle, Tabitha Fayson sought to modify her chapter 13 plan to surrender the vehicle and treat the deficiency as unsecured. Citing In re Nolan. 232 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2000), the creditor argued that modification she sought was prohibited under the Code. The court disagreed and joined the majority of bankruptcy courts finding that treatment of 910 claims may be modified in the manner sought by Ms. Fayson. 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.