From the Editor – Modification • NACTT Academy

From the Editor – Modification

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Postconfirmation modified plan not required to comply with projected disposable income test. After confirmation of above-median debtor’s plan, debtor’s income decreased and he moved to modify to reduce term of plan and distribution to unsecured creditors. The court concluded that § 1329(a)(2) permits shortening of plan term and that § 1325(b)’s projected disposable income is not enumerated in § 1329(b)(1)’s modification requirements. The split of authority on the issue was discussed, concluding that “the inclusion of section 1325(b) in the requirements . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Critical Case Comment – Debtor’s Counsel’s Fee Reduced to $48k

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 4, 2022

Chapter 13 debtor’s counsel’s fee award was reduced to $48,116 from the requested $95,480 due to pre-petition payments, confusing and “lumped” time entries, and excessive hourly rates for some services performed, even though the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was never even proposed much less confirmed. The debtor never attended a meeting of creditors, but the debtor managed to recover his...

Members

Critical Case Comment–84 Months: Lifesaver or Anchor?

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 12, 2023

Section 1329(c), as it currently exists, forecloses the ability of Chapter 13 debtor to modify a confirmed plan to alter the plan payment amount while maintaining an extended plan, previously approved under the CARES Act. (Hanan) In re Nelson, 2022 WL 6795096 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. October 11, 2022) Case Summary Immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress sought...

Members

Think Beyond The Means Test

August 23, 2020

By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) It started as a means test question: could emergency medical expenses be deemed non consumer debt. It ended up as a step back to get the bigger picture. Well-seasoned bankruptcy counsel brought the fact pattern to a list serve of colleagues. The prospective debtors’ income in a small consulting corporation is declining, his...

Members

Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9

November 29, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART VI – CONSUMER FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES (CONCLUSION) Introduction In the consumer bankruptcy field, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). In this series for the NACTT Academy, we have looked at numerous topics involving the interplay of Article...

Members

Preferences: When does the Clock Start Running?

Alan C. Hochheiser

February 19, 2023

Creditors may now be subject to more preference actions, especially for those cases filed in Indiana. The Seventh Circuit recently overturned long-standing precedent that the preference period on garnishment of attachment would no longer run from the date of service or knowledge of the attachment but when the funds were paid over. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Mark...

Members

Conflicting Interpretations: A Chapter 13 Trustee’s Compensation After Pre-Confirmation Dismissal or Conversion – Part 2 of 3

Brittani Bushman

February 6, 2022

(Used with expressed permission from the MI Bankruptcy Journal and the Steven W. Rhodes Consumer Bankruptcy Conference) III. Contrasting the Majority and Minority Interpretations The majority and minority approaches differ as to (1) the interpretation of the use of "collect" in § 586(e); (2) the operative effect of parallel provisions in chapters 11 and 12 on the interpretation of §...

Members

Thoughts on the Law: “None of My Business” Or “CU Later”? – Does Refusing to Do Business with a Debtor Violate the Automatic Stay?

February 9, 2020

By The Honorable John P. Gustafson Can a creditor refuse to do business with a debtor, or is such refusal a violation of the automatic stay? The case of Brown v. Penn State Employees Credit Union, 851 F.2d 81 (3rd Cir. 1988) held that a credit union’s refusal to continue to do business with a debtor who caused a loss...

Members

From the Editor – Curing Default

October 27, 2019

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debtor could cure default beyond 60 months. Agreeing with In re Klaas, 858 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2017), bankruptcy court had discretion to permit debtors to cure plan default, allowing a reasonable grace period beyond the 60 months of confirmed plan. Dismissal of the case for plan default was not required under §...

Members

Keep Calm and Carry On – Observations Regarding CBRA

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

October 9, 2022

First, breathe deep and try to relax. The Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative House Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, with minimal notice, set an oversight hearing for September 29, 2022. The subcommittee is charged to deal with matters relating to bankruptcy. The subject of the hearing was to be the “Oversight of the Bankruptcy Code, Part 2: Ensuring a Fresh...

Student Loans Debacle-Part II: Failure to Forgive – The Ticking Time-Bomb

R. Michael Smith

October 23, 2022

The recent push for student loan forgiveness has been met with increasing opposition. The rationales for not providing a generally applicable path for student loan forgiveness or cancellation have included arguments based upon imagined unfairness to those previously able to pay off their loans, which seems to be both short-sighted, as well as a “red herring” argument. It does not...