Something Might Be Broke, but Abolishing Chapter 13 Ain’t the Fix

By Professor Michaela M. White

Last week, I discussed Professor Katherine Porter’s study, The Pretend Solution: An Empirical Study of Bankruptcy Outcomes, 90 Texas L. Rev.103 (2011).  Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee, has already written a response to Professor Porter’s study entitled A Response to a Pretend Solution. This week, as promised, I summarize Mr. Hildebrand’s criticisms of Professor Porter’s study.

Mr. Hildebrand takes issue with Professor Porter’s conclusion that Chapter 13 is a “pretend solution,” especially in light of her study’s sample:

Professor Porter tested the success of the Chapter 13 option, not by testing a random sampling of debtors who have successfully navigated a Chapter 13 case, or even a random sampling of debtors who filed a Chapter 13 case. Rather, her sample is drawn from debtors whose cases have failed. Asking a random sample of debtors whose cases did not finish whether they accomplished the goals they had when they embarked on their bankruptcy journey is like asking a runner who could not finish a race whether he achieved the goal he had when he left the starting line. It is a rare runner who takes the starting gate without the goal of at least crossing the finish line. (Footnotes omitted).

Hildebrand at 5.

Mr. Hildebrand concurs with Professor Porter’s observation that Chapter 13 is complex, but he argues that its complexity is to some extent inevitable given the nature of a statute that is “designed to restructure every secured debt, cure all debts, and commit all disposable income” to a plan filed by debtors whose goals are to repay, not avoid, debts. Moreover, Chapter 13 was intended to be, and even after the 2005 Amendments remains, strictly voluntary. It is properly viewed as an alternative to the not-so-tender mercies of state law or nonbankruptcy budgeting and repayment strategies for financially swamped families. Hildebrand at 4.

“Chapter 13 is a consumer bankruptcy program that gives debtors a choice and a chance,” writes Mr. Hildebrand. Hildebrand at 7. Professor Porter’s own data shows that debtors themselves recognize this distinction, argues Hildebrand. The vast majority of the sample debtors felt that the decision to file Chapter 13 was either a very good or a somewhat good decision despite the fact they were unable to complete their plans. This indicates the debtors themselves saw Chapter 13 as an opportunity rather than a guaranty.

Hildebrand acknowledges that many debtors do not complete their plans. However, he says, inability to complete Chapter 13 plans should be addressed in the first instance by the debtor and the debtor’s counsel by taking account of risk in assessing plan feasibility.  Behavioral research shows that people systematically underestimate their personal risks even when they know the probability of unfavorable results for others.  No doubt, suggests Hildebrand, Porter’s sample debtors shared this optimism at the initial stages of Chapter 13. It is up to their lawyers and judges to help them formulate more realistic repayment goals.

However realistic at the beginning stages, plans also “fail” after unanticipated setbacks such as a health crisis or job loss.  The present Chapter 13 system takes this into account through the possibility of plan modification. Chapter 13 plan modifications, argues Hildebrand, not necessarily dismissal or conversion, ought to be sincerely offered and made more readily available to Chapter 13 debtors facing plan default. Hildebrand argues that “the pretend solution” is not a failure in the system – it is a failure of individuals to obtain the appropriate assistance to implement a flexible Chapter 13 plan.” Hildebrand at 6.

Hildebrand concludes that while there may be a case for “scrapping our existing consumer bankruptcy system for one that is fairer, cheaper, or easier to navigate,” Professor Porter’s study of debtors in failed cases whose goals were not realized does not adequately make that case. In his view, this study, as well as Porter’s earlier work, may indeed show that consumer bankruptcy – not simply Chapter 13 – has failed the American consumer. However, this is because bankruptcy can deal only with existing debt and cannot deal with insufficient or nonexistent income. In Hildebrand’s view, Porter’s findings that “approximately 50% of  Chapter 13 debtors did not “finish the race” or “achieve their goals” and experience financial problems after they leave bankruptcy “may demonstrate a problem, but the problem may not be the bankruptcy system.” Hildebrand at 8.

Please tell us what YOU think.  Did Mr. Hildbrand make all the arguments you would make? Do you agree that taking plan feasibility more seriously and plan modification more readily accessible and obtainable will fix the “problem” of plan “failure?” Or do you think that there is a problem at all?  We want to hear from you.

Something Might Be Broke, but Abolishing Chapter 13 Ain’t the Fix

By Professor Michaela M. White

Last week, I discussed Professor Katherine Porter’s study, The Pretend Solution: An Empirical Study of Bankruptcy Outcomes, 90 Texas L. Rev.103 (2011). Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee, has already written a response to Professor Porter’s study entitled A Response to a Pretend Solution. This week, as promised, I summarize Mr. Hildebrand’s criticisms of Professor Porter’s study.

Mr. Hildebrand takes issue with Professor Porter’s conclusion that Chapter 13 is a “pretend solution,” especially in light of her study’s sample:

Professor Porter tested the success of the Chapter 13 option, not by testing a random sampling of debtors who have successfully navigated a Chapter 13 case, or even a random sampling of debtors who filed a Chapter 13 case. Rather, her sample is drawn from debtors whose cases have failed. Asking a random sample of debtors whose cases did not finish whether they accomplished the goals they had when they embarked on their bankruptcy journey is like asking a runner who could not finish a race whether he achieved the goal he had when he left the starting line. It is a rare runner who takes the starting gate without the goal of at least crossing the finish line. (Footnotes omitted).

Hildebrand at 5.

Mr. Hildebrand concurs with Professor Porter’s observation that Chapter 13 is complex, but he argues that its complexity is to some extent inevitable given the nature of a statute that is “designed to restructure every secured debt, cure all debts, and commit all disposable income” to a plan filed by debtors whose goals are to repay, not avoid, debts. Moreover, Chapter 13 was intended to be, and even after the 2005 Amendments remains, strictly voluntary. It is properly viewed as an alternative to the not-so-tender mercies of state law or nonbankruptcy budgeting and repayment strategies for financially swamped families. Hildebrand at 4.

“Chapter 13 is a consumer bankruptcy program that gives debtors a choice and a chance,” writes Mr. Hildebrand. Hildebrand at 7. Professor Porter’s own data shows that debtors themselves recognize this distinction, argues Hildebrand. The vast majority of the sample debtors felt that the decision to file Chapter 13 was either a very good or a somewhat good decision despite the fact they were unable to complete their plans. This indicates the debtors themselves saw Chapter 13 as an opportunity rather than a guaranty.

Hildebrand acknowledges that many debtors do not complete their plans. However, he says, inability to complete Chapter 13 plans should be addressed in the first instance by the debtor and the debtor’s counsel by taking account of risk in assessing plan feasibility. Behavioral research shows that people systematically underestimate their personal risks even when they know the probability of unfavorable results for others. No doubt, suggests Hildebrand, Porter’s sample debtors shared this optimism at the initial stages of Chapter 13. It is up to their lawyers and judges to help them formulate more realistic repayment goals.

However realistic at the beginning stages, plans also “fail” after unanticipated setbacks such as a health crisis or job loss. The present Chapter 13 system takes this into account through the possibility of plan modification. Chapter 13 plan modifications, argues Hildebrand, not necessarily dismissal or conversion, ought to be sincerely offered and made more readily available to Chapter 13 debtors facing plan default. Hildebrand argues that “the pretend solution” is not a failure in the system – it is a failure of individuals to obtain the appropriate assistance to implement a flexible Chapter 13 plan.” Hildebrand at 6.

Hildebrand concludes that while there may be a case for “scrapping our existing consumer bankruptcy system for one that is fairer, cheaper, or easier to navigate,” Professor Porter’s study of debtors in failed cases whose goals were not realized does not adequately make that case. In his view, this study, as well as Porter’s earlier work, may indeed show that consumer bankruptcy – not simply Chapter 13 – has failed the American consumer. However, this is because bankruptcy can deal only with existing debt and cannot deal with insufficient or nonexistent income. In Hildebrand’s view, Porter’s findings that “approximately 50% of Chapter 13 debtors did not “finish the race” or “achieve their goals” and experience financial problems after they leave bankruptcy “may demonstrate a problem, but the proble

Something Might Be Broke, but Abolishing Chapter 13 Ain’t the Fix

By Professor Michaela M. White

Last week, I discussed Professor Katherine Porter’s study, The Pretend Solution: An Empirical Study of Bankruptcy Outcomes, 90 Texas L. Rev.103 (2011).  Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee, has already written a response to Professor Porter’s study entitled A Response to a Pretend Solution. This week, as promised, I summarize Mr. Hildebrand’s criticisms of Professor Porter’s study.

Mr. Hildebrand takes issue with Professor Porter’s conclusion that Chapter 13 is a “pretend solution,” especially in light of her study’s sample:

Professor Porter tested the success of the Chapter 13 option, not by testing a random sampling of debtors who have successfully navigated a Chapter 13 case, or even a random sampling of debtors who filed a Chapter 13 case. Rather, her sample is drawn from debtors whose cases have failed. Asking a random sample of debtors whose cases did not finish whether they accomplished the goals they had when they embarked on their bankruptcy journey is like asking a runner who could not finish a race whether he achieved the goal he had when he left the starting line. It is a rare runner who takes the starting gate without the goal of at least crossing the finish line. (Footnotes omitted).

Hildebrand at 5.

Mr. Hildebrand concurs with Professor Porter’s observation that Chapter 13 is complex, but he argues that its complexity is to some extent inevitable given the nature of a statute that is “designed to restructure every secured debt, cure all debts, and commit all disposable income” to a plan filed by debtors whose goals are to repay, not avoid, debts. Moreover, Chapter 13 was intended to be, and even after the 2005 Amendments remains, strictly voluntary. It is properly viewed as an alternative to the not-so-tender mercies of state law or nonbankruptcy budgeting and repayment strategies for financially swamped families. Hildebrand at 4.

“Chapter 13 is a consumer bankruptcy program that gives debtors a choice and a chance,” writes Mr. Hildebrand. Hildebrand at 7. Professor Porter’s own data shows that debtors themselves recognize this distinction, argues Hildebrand. The vast majority of the sample debtors felt that the decision to file Chapter 13 was either a very good or a somewhat good decision despite the fact they were unable to complete their plans. This indicates the debtors themselves saw Chapter 13 as an opportunity rather than a guaranty.

Hildebrand acknowledges that many debtors do not complete their plans. However, he says, inability to complete Chapter 13 plans should be addressed in the first instance by the debtor and the debtor’s counsel by taking account of risk in assessing plan feasibility.  Behavioral research shows that people systematically underestimate their personal risks even when they know the probability of unfavorable results for others.  No doubt, suggests Hildebrand, Porter’s sample debtors shared this optimism at the initial stages of Chapter 13. It is up to their lawyers and judges to help them formulate more realistic repayment goals.

However realistic at the beginning stages, plans also “fail” after unanticipated setbacks such as a health crisis or job loss.  The present Chapter 13 system takes this into account through the possibility of plan modification. Chapter 13 plan modifications, argues Hildebrand, not necessarily dismissal or conversion, ought to be sincerely offered and made more readily available to Chapter 13 debtors facing plan default. Hildebrand argues that “the pretend solution” is not a failure in the system – it is a failure of individuals to obtain the appropriate assistance to implement a flexible Chapter 13 plan.” Hildebrand at 6.

Hildebrand concludes that while there may be a case for “scrapping our existing consumer bankruptcy system for one that is fairer, cheaper, or easier to navigate,” Professor Porter’s study of debtors in failed cases whose goals were not realized does not adequately make that case. In his view, this study, as well as Porter’s earlier work, may indeed show that consumer bankruptcy – not simply Chapter 13 – has failed the American consumer. However, this is because bankruptcy can deal only with existing debt and cannot deal with insufficient or nonexistent income. In Hildebrand’s view, Porter’s findings that “approximately 50% of  Chapter 13 debtors did not “finish the race” or “achieve their goals” and experience financial problems after they leave bankruptcy “may demonstrate a problem, but the problem may not be the bankruptcy system.” Hildebrand at 8.

Please tell us what YOU think.  Did Mr. Hildbrand make all the arguments you would make? Do you agree that taking plan feasibility more seriously and plan modification more readily accessible and obtainable will fix the “problem” of plan “failure?” Or do you think that there is a problem at all?  We want to hear from you.

m may not be the bankruptcy system.” Hildebrand at 8.

Please tell us what YOU think. Did Mr. Hildbrand make all the arguments you would make? Do you agree that taking plan feasibility more seriously and plan modification more readily accessible and obtainable will fix the “problem” of plan “failure?” Or do you think that there is a problem at all? We want to hear from you.


Professor of Law, Michaela White received her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1976, and her Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, in 1979 from Creighton University, where she was on the Creighton Law Review Editorial Staff and a member of the Moot Court Honors Board. She was law clerk to The Honorable Donald R. Ross of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and for The Honorable Fallon Kelly of the Minnesota Supreme Court. She practiced law in Minnesota from 1980-1983, and then served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Nebraska Department of Justice. Prof. White joined Creighton after serving for six years as a Professor of Law at McGeorge School of Law. Most recently, Prof. White authored the book, When Worlds Collide: Bankruptcy and Domestic Relations Law, 4th Ed. (American Bankruptcy Institute, 2010).


No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

November 14, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville) The automatic stay does not require a creditor pursuing a prepetition nonbankruptcy court action to dismiss that action once a bankruptcy case is filed; requesting continuances and attending status conferences do not constitute “continuation” of the prepetition action for purposes of the automatic stay....
Members
May 5, 2019
From renting spare rooms and vacation homes to car rides or using a bike…name a service and it’s probably available through the sharing economy. Taxpayers who participate in the sharing economy can find helpful resources in the IRS Sharing Economy Tax Center on IRS.gov. It helps taxpayers understand how this activity affects their taxes. It also gives these taxpayers information...
October 24, 2021
By Jay S. Jump, CEO, CertificateofService.com (Pasco, WA) My guess is you initially saw the title of this article and promptly pressed right on past it. Who needs to learn how to properly address an envelope? You didn’t spend three years in law school plus all that money in student loans to address an envelope! But, If the purpose of...
Members
May 26, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC (In re Jackson Masonry, LLC),1 the Sixth Circuit reviewed circuit authority on finality of orders for appellate purposes and affirmed the district court's dismissal of an appeal from an order denying stay relief. The Court of Appeals said that, under 28...
Members
Judge Corbit
January 14, 2024
Bankruptcy Judge (E.D. Washington) serves up classics with wooden tennis racket collection.
October 11, 2020
By Mary Viegelahn, Chapter 13 Trustee San Antonio, Texas Although Trustee Viegelahn first produced this list for an ethics panel in 2019, it is a timely heads-up now. This list was gathered from Trustees across the country. Providing ECF credentials to an outside “firm” to allow them to file a bankruptcy for a debtor the attorney has never met or...
Members
February 2, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Punitive damages reduced for FDCPA and RESPA violations. The mortgage servicer violated FDCPA, RESPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by treating account as delinquent after Chapter 13 debtor had cured arrears, brought account current and obtained discharge. The servicer mistakenly marked the Chapter 13 case as dismissed rather...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
December 4, 2022
Many have had the unpleasant experience of coping with an ill-mannered and disrespectful opposing counsel. Unnecessary motions are filed and unfounded allegations are asserted. Relief requested has no basis in fact or law. Temperatures rise. The volume of argument is loud. Your staff and you are upset. What to do?We asked the Emeritus Trustees and here are some recommendations: First,...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
September 25, 2022
Dear Danny, We know that you would not want a tribute – it’s simply not who you are. But we couldn’t let this moment pass without acknowledging how admired and respected you are. We will all miss you and are better for having known you. You are a stellar example of what all humanity should strive to be. As a...
Academy Circle Logo Final
January 7, 2024
As a follow-up to The Academy’s December 3, 2023, issue, three Emeritus Trustees weighed in. The 12/3/23 issue included Cathy Moran’s Chapter 13 NoLook Fees: The Horns of a Dilemma and Trustee Hildebrand’s Critical Case Comment, You Gotta Fix Your Own Screw-ups, On Your Own Dime. You may also want to take note of comments on each article and add your own. Today, we offer the thoughts of two additional Emeritus Trustees. Thus a follow-up to our follow-up. 😊
Members

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.

Webinars

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: