By Richardo I. Kilpatrick, Craig B. Rule and Suzy M. Sidote of Kilpatrick & Associates, P.C., Auburn Hills, MI

11 U.S.C. § 101, the introduction to the Bankruptcy Code, begins not with a preamble discussing the purposes behind the legislation, but with a list of definitions.  The definitions generally discuss the meaning of key terms that appear frequently throughout Title 11.  What is missing from this section and the Bankruptcy Code as a whole, however, is a definitive Congressional declaration of the goals of the bankruptcy process.  The nature of a consumer Chapter 7 case clearly points to discharge as the primary intended goal of a debtor.  Chapter 13, the consumer reorganization chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, does not lend itself to such an unambiguous answer.  A Chapter 13 debtor may define “success” in a number of ways depending on the circumstances surrounding the filing of the case and the subjective goals of the debtor.  These individual understandings of success, however, may not comport with the intent of Congress in this area.  Given the lack of an explicit definition of a successful Chapter 13 case in the Bankruptcy Code, we are left to the legislative history, implicit understandings in the Code, and judicial interpretations to resolve this quandary.  As discussed below, the reliance on these tools to discern Congressional intent fails to produce any clear-cut answer.

The legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code and the amendments thereto provides little guidance as to the Congress’s goals in enacting Chapter 13.  Rather, the various reports merely elucidate the meaning of specific provisions of the Code.  Accordingly, any analysis must turn to meanings embedded within the language of the Bankruptcy Code and the pronouncements of courts examining that language.

The Bankruptcy Code and its judicial interpretations appear to point to only two competing definitions of a successful Chapter 13 case: discharge or the mere completion of plan payments.  The former position is best supported by 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a), which provides for the general discharge of a debtor’s obligation to pay debts upon completion of Chapter 13 plan payments.  As in Chapter 7 cases, the “default” result of the completion of a Chapter 13 is the discharge most debts[i].  Any exceptions to granting a general discharge are narrowly defined in the Bankruptcy Code and, in practice, come into play in only a small minority of cases.  This provides a powerful indication that Congress intended a successful Chapter 13 case to result in a discharge.

Judicial findings as to the over-arching purpose of the Bankruptcy Code similarly point to discharge as the ultimate goal of consumer bankruptcy cases.  The Supreme Court has proclaimed that the “principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a ‘fresh start’ to the ‘honest but unfortunate debtor.’” Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365, 367 (2007), quoting Grogan v. Gardner, 498 U.S. 279, 286 (1991).  The Marrama Court, in fact, employs this statement to preface a discussion regarding discharge in both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases.  The idea of a “fresh start” has long been synonymous with a discharge in the bankruptcy context.  As early as 1904, the Supreme Court indicated that bankruptcy is “designed to relieve the honest debtor from the weight of indebtedness which has become oppressive and to permit him to have a fresh start in business or commercial life, freed from the obligation and responsibilities which may have resulted from business misfortunes.” Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 77 (1904)(Emphasis Added).  This purpose is best fulfilled when a debtor does more than just delay repayment while reorganizing; a debtor cannot truly make a financial “fresh start” without the general discharge provided for under Section 1328(a).

The Bankruptcy Code and case law interpreting it also point to a competing potential goal of a Chapter 13 case: the successful completion of plan payments.  Although discharge clearly plays a significant role in the Chapter 13 scheme, there is no definitive indication that the potential for discharge is a necessary requirement.  Although Section 1328(a)[ii] affords a debtor a broad discharge after plan payments are completed, the 2005 Amendments, through the enactment of 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f), prohibits discharge in certain cases in which a debtor has received a prior bankruptcy discharge.[iii] This exception, contained in the discharge section of Chapter 13, does nothing to prohibit the filing or confirmation of a Chapter 13 case.

Had Congress intended to compel all Chapter 13 debtors to be eligible for discharge upon completion of their cases, it would have narrowed the class of individuals entitled to file a Chapter 13 case.  11 U.S.C. § 109(e) sets forth who may file a Chapter 13 case.  This subsection provides that only an individual with regular income who has secured and unsecured debts below specified maximum dollar amounts is permitted to seek Chapter 13 relief.  Absent is any suggestion that the debtor must be eligible to receive a discharge if the plan is successfully completed.

Similarly, the inability of a case to proceed to discharge does not hamper the confirmation of a proposed plan.  Neither 11 U.S.C. § 1322 nor 11 U.S.C. § 1325, which respectively address the mandatory contents of a plan and the requirements for confirmation, conditions confirmation on whether the debtor will receive a discharge.  Instead, the Bankruptcy Code appears to require, in order to confirm a case, that the debtor shows that it is likely that he or she will successfully complete the plan.  This mandate is embodied in the feasibility provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6), which provides that a bankruptcy court shall confirm a plan if “the debtor will be able to make all payments under the plan and to comply with the plan”.  Section 1325(a)(6) “requires debtors to establish and courts to find, considering all the circumstances, that there is a reasonable likelihood of success of plan completion, and that debtors will be able to comply with all plan terms.” In re Erbaugh, 199 B.R.367, 369 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio1996).

Absent a definitive statement of what constitutes a successful Chapter 13 case from Congress, practitioners and judges will continue to make only educated guesses.

[i] The “court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts . . . except any debt-“. 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(Emphasis Added).

[ii] Furthermore, in a Chapter 13 cases, unlike a Chapter 7 case, it is possible (although in practice, extremely rare) that a debtor, by the completion of the plan, may pay 100% of all debts with interest.  In these circumstances, a discharge is essentially meaningless since all debts were paid in full and there is nothing to which the discharge could apply.  The goal of the Chapter 13 case, therefore, was solely to take advantage of the automatic stay to give the debtor time to repay all debts.  It is unlikely that Congress would deem such a scenario improper.

[iii] Decided before the 2005 Amendments, the Supreme Court, in Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78 (1991), appears to validate the ability of a debtor to file a Chapter 13 case immediately after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge, and, therefore, the ability of a Chapter 13 case to proceed to completion without a discharge.


Admitted to Bar, 1983, Michigan; United States District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan; United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit; admitted to United States Supreme Court, March 17, 1997.

EDUCATION: Harvard University (B.A., Economics, 1973); University of Michigan Law School (J.D. 1982).

PRACTICE: Kilpatrick & Associates, P.C., President (January 2000 – Present) – A professional corporation specializing in Creditors Rights and Insolvency Law focusing on Insolvency, Corporate, Consumer and Commercial Litigation and Bankruptcy, Real Property Remedies for Creditors, Real Property Transactions, and General Corporate Counseling.

MEMBERSHIPS: State Bar of Michigan; United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Michigan; Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States.  Mr. Kilpatrick served on the Board of Directors for the American College of Bankruptcy; the Counsel of Certified Bankruptcy Specialists; and President (2001) of the American Bankruptcy Institute. He was inducted as a Fellow into the American College of Bankruptcy, March 1999 and served on the Board of Directors July 2001-2007. Mr. Kilpatrick spoke at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in 1989, 1995 and 1997-1999, 2002 and 2005. He is a presenter at numerous seminars focusing on bankruptcy and collections given by the Institute of Continuing Legal Education faculty for the Norton Litigation Institute (1992-present); PESI and the American Bankruptcy Institute. Mr. Kilpatrick is the Editor for Norton’s Treatise on Bankruptcy and frequently publishes articles on Consumer and Commercial Bankruptcy. In October of 2008, Mr. Kilpatrick was invited to the National Bankruptcy Conference as a Conferee and accepted the invitation. The Conference provides input to Congress and others on how to improve the bankruptcy system.  In August of 2011, Mr. Kilpatrick accepted an invitation to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

March 3, 2019
By Carri Hayden Johnson, Staff Attorney to O. Byron Meredith, Chapter 13 Trustee (Savannah, GA) The filing of a bankruptcy petition acts as a stay of certain actions against the debtor or the debtor’s property. The automatic stay is essentially the fundamental reason that a debtor seeks relief in the form of bankruptcy, as it allows the debtor a brief...
April 7, 2019
By Helen M. Morris, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia It really takes so little to make a Chapter 13 Trustee happy—debtor’s counsel using calculators when they draft a plan ($100 for 36 months is NOT $4,936.87 no matter how many times it is repeated); saying “the Trustee is right” distinctly in open...
NN Photo
August 14, 2022
In April, Brian Tucci started his appointment as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for Baltimore, Maryland. He is a native Marylander with deep roots in the Maryland bankruptcy community. Brian succeeded the late Robert S. Thomas, II and Robert’s predecessor, the late Ellen Crosby. Brian earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Maryland and his J.D. at Western Michigan...
June 11, 2023
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has released an updated Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Minimum Wage Poster that covers employers’ new lactation accommodation obligations under the recently passed Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers (PUMP) Act.   The PUMP Act went into effect on December 29, 2022 and requires employers to provide nursing employees with reasonable accommodations, such as...
November 15, 2020
By David Cox,1 Cox Law Group, PLLC (Lynchburg, VA) Click here for Part 1 II. Dealing With Balloon, Short Term and Related Mortgage Secured Claims Under §§ 1322(c)(2) And 1325(a)(5). § 1322(c)(2) provides that: “Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2) and applicable nonbankruptcy law . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to...
July 28, 2019
By Robert (Bob) Schuman, Owner/Managing Broker, Network Financial Group I’m a mortgage broker. In that role, I see close up the immense relief that a homeowner feels when they file Chapter 13. They are no longer forced to deal with collection calls and a multitude of letters that are aggressive and intimidating, threatening to take their car, foreclose on their...
June 16, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee Mortgage creditor may not withdraw a notice of fees, costs, and charges filed in a case after the supplement to the claim has been challenged without court approval; the allowance of such a notice will not be permitted where a state statute forbids it. Quicken...
March 14, 2021
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Failure to pay postpetition fees under Rule 3002.1 did not prevent discharge. The debtor had completed payments to the trustee and postpetition mortgage payments to the creditor, but she had not paid $1,370 in postpetition fees that had been asserted by the mortgage creditor and noticed to the debtor under Rule 3002.1. That...
February 2, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Class action certification on predominance. The Eleventh Circuit remanded, finding that the District Court had abused its discretion in refusing to certify a class on a predominance theory for former debtors who had obtained discharge of personal liability on residential mortgages and who asserted violations of the FDCPA by a loan servicer. The...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
March 31, 2024
Debtors’ attorney’s fees can be calculated as a percentage of the presumptively reasonable “no-look” fee for cases involuntarily dismissed prior to confirmation and is an allowed administrative claim which can be paid under § 1326(a)(2).

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.


These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: