The Continuing Saga of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees in Pre-Confirmation Dismissals

Courts continue to wrestle with the issue of trustee fees in pre-confirmation dismissals. The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois has now weighed in in In re Johnson, 2023 WL 3406597 (Bankr. N.D. Il. 2023).

The facts are pretty typical. Debtor filed for Chapter 13. After 8 months and 8 confirmation hearings, the Court granted Trustee’s request for dismissal for “unreasonable delay” under § 1307(c)(1). One week after dismissal, Debtor filed a Motion to require the Trustee to disgorge the Trustee fee. The Trustee . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

Thomas D. DeCarlo

Attorney at Osipov Bigelman, PC (Southfield, MI)

Tom DeCarlo is an attorney at Osipov Bigelman, PC, in Southfield, Michigan. He has over 38 years of experience in bankruptcy, including a 17-year stint as a Staff Attorney to a Chapter 13 Standing Trustee in Detroit. He is a frequent contributor to ConsiderChapter13.org and a recurrent seminar speaker including the Annual Steven W. Rhodes Veteran’s Day Conference.

Sibling Rivalry: The Power of 11 USC § 363(h)

Michael B. Joseph

February 23, 2025

When siblings clash over inherited property or other co-owners get crosswise, § 363(h) provides a powerful tool to resolve disputes, force sales, and bring finality to long-standing family battles over ownership.

Members

Meet a New Trustee

The Academy

December 19, 2021

One of our very newest trustees is very familiar to many of us. After serving ten years as Chief of Staff (a/k/a Staff Attorney) to Martha Bronitsky, on August 1, 2021, Nima Ghazvini was appointed Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Districts of Hawaii, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands. What you may not know is that Ghazvini was born in...

Be Sure Your Sins Will Find You Out

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

September 15, 2024

Failure of a Chapter 13 debtor to disclose the existence of a cause of action which accrued prior to or shortly after the filing of the petition merits dismissal of the case with a one-year bar against a subsequent bankruptcy filing.

Members

FROM THE ARCHIVES: If You’re Gonna Bet the Farm, Maybe Play Against the House

Danielle N. Gueck-Townsend

December 3, 2023

Attorney Gueck-Townsend provides readers with a primer on evidence needed to prove losses.

Members

Passing of Sitting Chief Judge

The Academy

December 3, 2023

District of Idaho Announces Passing of Chief Bankruptcy Judge Joseph M. Meier

Still Crazy After All These Years

Cathy Moran

December 22, 2024

“ . . . , as far as I can find, no court has approved a modification that reduced the liquidation dividend when assets have lost value, such as falling stock values, catastrophic events, or business failure.”

Members

Enforcing Chapter 13 Payroll Deductions

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

May 5, 2024

Failure of an employer to comply with the terms of a payroll deduction order justifies a finding of contempt and the award of costs, attorney’s fees, and potential referral for criminal action.

Members

Big Dog Bites Back but Too Late

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

January 12, 2025

An alleged lessor’s tardy objection to confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan which treats the obligation as a secured loan is precluded from pursuing that objection after passage of the deadline established by the court.

Members

Bankrupt Attorney Cannot Discharge State Court Sanctions

Nicole P. Novak

September 11, 2022

In a recent opinion, the 9th Circuit BAP affirmed a bankruptcy judge’s decision that sanctions order by a state court were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6)i and that the state court proceeding precluded litigating the issue in bankruptcy.ii The sanctions originate from a California doctor’s defamation suit against two former patients. The Doctor initiated the action against two women who wrote...

Members

The Long Reach of R. 3002.1

Cathy Moran

August 20, 2023

What are the consequences of a secured lender’s failure to comply with R. 3002.1 in a prior case when the debtor files again? Significant, it seems. . . . since their attorney said he “didn’t see the need” to do so. [Can you guess, now, how this comes out?]

Members