From the Editor – Modification of Plan

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Noticing requirements apply to pre-confirmation modification. Rule 2002(a)(5) and 2002(b)(2) noticing requirements apply to pre-confirmation modifications of a plan, and the notice is required to all creditors. The debtors argued that the clerk’s notice of the 341 meeting gave sufficient notice of the deadline to object to confirmation of the original plan, and those creditors failing to timely object were not required to receive notice of subsequent pre-confirmation modification, but the court held that any modification resets the time for objections . . .

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
July 24, 2022
Secured creditor in a Chapter 13 case entitled to relief from the stay due to lack of adequate protection where the creditor neglects to file a proof of claim and, as a consequent, received no payments under a Chapter 13 plan. (Conley) Weyer v. Valley Communities Credit Union, 2022 WL 1597293 (W.D. Wis. May 19, 2022) Case Summary Dana and...
Members
February 12, 2023
Previously the Emeritus Trustees (“ETC”) were asked to comment on “How to Manage Unprofessional and Discourteous Attorneys”. We now turn to ETC to share their collective wisdom when addressing the issues raised by incompetent, unprepared, and negligent bankruptcy counsel. Chapter 13 Trustees are required to administer cases in accordance with the duties set forth in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1302 and...
Members
November 15, 2020
Lawrence R. Ahern, III Brown & Ahern Nashville, Tennessee Appendix C Bankruptcy Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule (28 U.S.C § 1930) Effective December 1, 2020 Description Current Fee Adjusted Fee Exemplification $22 $23 Reproduction of audio recording of court proceeding $31 $32 Filing amendment to debtor's schedules $31 $32 Search fee $31 $32 Filing any document that is not related to...
Members
April 4, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction We saw in Part 1 that the circuits are falling in line to follow the "snapshot" rule, fixing the debtor's exemption rights as of the date of the petition and finding support in both the Code and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. As the First Circuit put it . ....
Members
March 15, 2020
By Professor Nancy Rapoport, University of Nevada Dear Readers: The marvelous, indefatigable Regina Logsdon just forwarded me this hypothetical: Post-confirmation, debtor/client gets upset with attorney. Let’s assume for this scenario that the attorney hasn’t done anything wrong – perhaps just a difference of opinion on a plan modification (or not). Debtor/client says ugly things to attorney – name-calling, etc. THEN...
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
June 2, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee If a Chapter 13 debtor does not list a creditor on the creditor matrix when filing the petition and makes no effort to provide supplemental notice to the creditor, the provisions of Rule 3002 allow the extension of time for the creditor to file a...
Members
October 3, 2021
By Jay Fleischman, Managing Attorney at Money Wise Law (Los Angeles, CA) When the world was forced to adjust to new routines in March 2020 due to the global pandemic, I was instantly struck by how little my professional life changed. I’d worked remotely for over a decade, and my systems and procedures didn’t change. Sadly, the same couldn’t be...
Members
March 24, 2019
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Discharge - Direct mortgage payments unpaid by debtor were not “provided for” in plan. The confirmed plan stated that the debtor would directly pay two home mortgages to the credit union, but there was no specification of payment terms or other treatment of those mortgages. At the time of confirmation, the...
Members
August 25, 2019
On 8/22/19 the IRSe and its Security Summit partners warned taxpayers and tax professionals about a new IRS impersonation scam campaign spreading nationally on email. Remember: the IRS does not send unsolicited emails and never emails taxpayers about the status of refunds. The IRS detected this new scam as taxpayers began notifying phis[email protected] about unsolicited emails from IRS imposters. The...