CRITICAL CASE COMMENT: In re Mattson

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee, Nashville, TN

In re Mattson, 2011 WL 3798844 (Bankr. W.D. Wash, Aug. 26, 2011) (Lynch)

To modify a confirmed Chapter 13 plan a debtor must demonstrate that there has been a substantial change in the debtor’s circumstances and the proposed plan change correlates to the changes experienced by the debtors; debtors may not, without cause, shorten the terms of their Chapter 13 plans.

 

Case Summary

 

The Debtors filed a Chapter 13 plan in December 2010. They had above median income but . . .

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.

Related Articles

Copy of Hildebrand-2016
August 6, 2023
Nothing prohibits the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan which frontloads the payment of attorney’s fees ahead of payments to secured and other creditors.
Members
July 12, 2020
By Daryl J. Smith, Senior Staff Attorney to Sylvia Ford Brown, Chapter 13 Trustee (Memphis, TN) and Katherine L. Rea, Staff Attorney to Pamela Simmons-Beasley, Chapter 13 Trustee (Columbia, SC) Is there ever a reason to oppose a voluntary dismissal of a chapter 13 that has not been converted from a chapter 7? Maybe. But will you be successful? Probably...
Members
August 9, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction to this Series Current pandemic circumstances and economic conditions portend an onslaught of bankruptcy filings. In the consumer bankruptcy field, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in UCC Article 9. Here, we look at a couple of topics that touch on the interplay of Article...
Members
Ashley Curry Headshot
December 12, 2021
In a recent case out of South Carolina, rather than a debtor seeking sanctions against a creditor, it was the creditor’s counsel who sought sanctions against counsel for a Chapter 13 debtor in an adversary proceeding. Ruling on a Motion for Sanctions in James Defoe v. Winyah Surgical Specialists, P.A. doing business as Winyah Surgical Specialists (In re Defoe), 632...
Members
September 27, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Disgorgement of fees for nondisclosure. The Tenth Circuit held that the “default sanction” for an attorney’s failure to satisfy disclosure obligation is full disgorgement of fees paid. While full disgorgement may not be required in particular circumstances, the “default sanction” principle required reversal and remand. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the BAP, had...
Members
October 31, 2021
By Eric K. Fox, Esq. (Hendersonville, TN) Jane Debtor has a home with a mortgage. An unsecured creditor obtains a judgment against Jane for, say, a credit card debt. Creditor’s attorney records a certified copy of the judgement order with the county register of deeds, thereby converting the unsecured claim against Jane in personam, to a secured claim against her...
Members
June 2, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III and Sloan Hastings Section 523(a)(1) excepts from discharge taxes that are priority claims under § 507(a)(8). One of § 507(a)(8)’s provisions makes debts not dischargeable for income taxes requiring the filing of a tax return due during the three years prior to filing bankruptcy. It is this “recent years taxes nondischargeable” moniker that leads many...
Members
March 15, 2020
By Scott Waterman, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Reading) Citing Pennsylvania law, a Federal District Court in In re Hamilton (Hamilton v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency), ___ B.R. ____ (E.D. Pa. 2020) refused to apply the equitable subordination doctrine to reorder the priority of mortgages after the first mortgage lender granted the debtors a loan modification prior...
Members
October 10, 2021
By Michael J. McCormick, Esq., McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (Roswell, GA) Escrow 101 – Part 1 Escrow 101 – Part 2 Escrow 101 – Part 3 Escrow 102 – Part 1
Members
William-1_print_2019
On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. _____, 2023 WL 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023), affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision and resolving “confusion in the lower courts on the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).”1 Two Justices joined the opinion with the understanding that the Court was only addressing fraud in the context...
Members