In re Young, No. DG 06-06385, 2012 WL 1592214 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2012) (Dales)

Debtors did not prove entitlement to discharge near end of 60-month plan when they had missed three payments and did not establish that they had paid all disposable income for applicable commitment period—notwithstanding that required 5% dividend could have been paid to unsecured creditors. Entitlement to discharge requires that debtors either prove they made all payments during applicable commitment period or prove that they paid all disposable income to trustee.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Meet a New Trustee

The Academy

October 22, 2023

Angela M. Scolforo was appointed as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Virginia on April Fool’s Day. She replaced Herbert L. Beskin who served as the Trustee for 20 years, retiring in March of this year. Angela received a B.A. in English from College of the Holy Cross in Worchester, Massachusetts, in1987. She did not immediately go...

9th Circuit BAP: Actually, Absolute Right to Dismiss Means Absolute

Hale Andrew Antico

January 29, 2023

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finds no “eligibility” exception to right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Powell vs TICO Construction (In re Powell) 644 B.R. 181 (9th Circuit BAP, 2022) ISSUE Did the bankruptcy court err in granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13? RULING No. FACTS This case tests the new “absolute right to dismiss” rule about...

Members

2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases – Part 7 Selected Decisions Under Parts I and II of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

March 26, 2023

Introduction Amendments to 16 rules and new one new rule took effect December 1, 2022. Many reflected changes necessitated by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA),1 and had been in place in the same or similar form on an interim basis since that legislation took effect. Part 1 of this series summarized 2022 . . . It looks...

Members

Critical Case Comment– Reverse Mortgage May be Modified

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

May 22, 2022

A reverse mortgage, having fallen due as a result of the death of the borrower, is not protected from modification by the borrower’s heirs by virtue of § 1322(c)(2). (Halfenger) In re Sandoval, 2022 WL 982182 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Juan Sandoval filed Chapter 13 and proposed a plan which dealt with his principal asset, a...

Members

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 – How Many Cats?

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

August 7, 2022

Even though the Chapter 13 debtor’s 36 cats were property of the estate, the county animal control office could pursue possession of the cats and resulting disposition (by way of adoption). (Hagenau) In re Karen Mitchell-Smith, 2022 WL 2195466 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 17, 2022) Case Summary Sometime in 2021, Henry County Animal Control took possession of 36 cats that...

Surrender of Collateral in a Plan- What Is the Court to Do if the Debtor Doesn’t Follow Through?

June 2, 2019

By Tammy E. Stickley and Francis J. DiCesare, Staff Attorneys for Margaret A. Burks, Esq. Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Cincinnati, OH) In a media age in which people expect to be told when “spoilers” are ahead, this summary needs no such warning. Courts have little patience for debtors who surrender collateral – especially real estate – then oppose the foreclosure...

Members

Barking Up the Wrong Tree: A Canine Conundrum

Robert G. Drummond

May 5, 2024

“ . . . creditor couldn’t fetch a break. . . . Court first found that the state court judgment was void because it was entered after the discharge order. . . . also found the creditor in contempt of the discharge injunction.”

Members

Critical Case Comment

November 3, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville) A creditor may request an extension of time to file a claim under Rule 3002, F.R.B.P. only where the conditions of that rule have been fully satisfied; the filing of a defective list of creditors does not permit an extension of the time for...

Members

The Change to Chapter 13 Law I’d Most Like to See?

The NACTT Emeritus Trustees

October 15, 2023

A question recently presented to the NACTT Emeritus Trustees is “the change to chapter 13 law I’d most like to see?” Here is a summary of their responses. This question was presented by a ConsiderChapter13.org reader. If you have a question for the Emeritus Trustees or Ms. Ps & Qs (ethics), please submit them here.

Members