In re Zeigafuse, No. 11-20854, 2012 WL 1155680, at *5 (Bankr. D. Wyo. Apr. 5, 2012) (McNiff)

Separate classification of continuing payment of long-term student loan “outside” plan unfairly discriminates when student loan creditor will receive 21% and general unsecured creditors only 1.2%; level payment plan would pay all unsecured creditors 19%. “This court . . . joins the majority view holding that §§ 1322(b)(1) and 1322(b)(5) must be read in conjunction with one another.” Applying the “four step test,” the “balancing test” and the “baseline test,” debtors failed to show a reasonable basis for the discrimination, debtors presented no evidence whether they could carry out their plan without the discrimination, Congress provided no priority of payment to student loans in Chapter 13 cases and debtors proposed no voluntary contributions to “square up” the disproportionate distribution.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

Copy of Hildebrand-2016
December 11, 2022
A Chapter 13 plan can be confirmed to pay a 100% dividend to unsecured creditors while maintaining payments to a student loan creditor as a long-term debt (which will not satisfy the student loan in the commitment period) without committing all available disposable income. (Mullin) In re Victoria Florita Durand-Day, 2022 WL 14938726 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. October 26, 2022) Case...
Members
August 11, 2019
Summertime activities often affect the tax returns people file the following year. Here are some things taxpayers do during the summer along with tips they should consider now: Getting married. Newlyweds should report any name change to the Social Security Administration. They should also report an address change to the United States Postal Service, their employers, and the IRS. This...
February 28, 2021
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) When BAPCA gutted the ipso facto clause, reaffirmation was left as the only way a debtor could be assured of retaining his wheels. Car lenders took sides back then, then changed sides, on whether they would automatically repossess a vehicle when the debt was not reaffirmed. Some wanted the in terrorem effect of...
Members
August 22, 2021
By Cathy Moran, Esq., (Redwood City, CA) When a married couple books a bankruptcy consultation, you have an immediate problem: There be dragons, as early map makers helpfully provided. Because, as a lawyer friend of mine says: Anytime there are two people sitting across from you, you have a conflict of interest. That pithy expression has stuck with me and...
Members
April 18, 2021
By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) If you’re looking for a well-written and clear appellate opinion about a much-litigated topic, with a bit of ancient mythology thrown in for good measure, this HUD’s for you. The case is Wood v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (In re Larry and...
Members
May 23, 2021
By The Honorable John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo) Reaffirmation hearings during the pandemic have been difficult, at least for me. The economic risks for debtors are greater. There are uncertainties about the availability of credit, and the availability of suitable vehicles. Prices of used cars have gone up – with stimulus money pushing...
Members
January 13, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo, OH) Click here for Part 1 of 6 Click here for Part 2 of 6 Click here for Part 4 of 6 Click here for Part 5 of 6
Members
August 4, 2019
By Academy Staff Those who have been around consumer bankruptcy for a while remember the halcyon days when a Debtor surrendered property in the Plan; Plan was confirmed; lender would foreclosure and file its deficiency claim; Debtor would complete the Plan; and obtain a discharge of all unsecured debts including the deficiency balance. Lenders were able to realize on the...
Members
ahern_larry_regular
April 10, 2022
Larry Ahern this week begins a two-part examination of whether a Chapter 13 trustee may retain fees paid without a confirmed plan before dismissal. Part 1 is a detailed analysis of McCallister v. Evans, a recent case accepting the trustee's position considering a division in the caselaw and analyzing in detail the relevant statutes. May the Chapter 13 Trustee Keep...
Members
August 22, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) While the best interests of creditors test is applicable upon modification of a Chapter 13 plan, post-petition acquired property of the estate is not included in such analysis in that such property would not be property of a Chapter 7 estate. (Somers) In re Taylor, 2021 WL 3118824 (Bankr....
Members