Fridley v. Forsythe (In re Fridley), ---- B.R. ---- (9th Cir. BA...
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:37 pm
FOUND ONLINE TODAY - NATE BERNEMAN
Fridley v. Forsythe (In re Fridley), ---- B.R. ---- (9th Cir. BAP December, 2007)
Issue: Can a debtor, at a given point into the chapter 13 plan, simply pay all of the forthcoming payments under the plan at once and receive a discharge immediately?
Holding: Not without seeking a modification of the plan through a noticed motion and establishing good faith.
Judge Paul Snyder, Washington
Klein, Montali, Jury
Opinion by Klein
These are under-median chapter 13 debtors. The plan confirmed in June 2006 provided for payments of $125 per month and, in paragraph 3.E.2, that the debtors would pay their projected disposable income of $0 for no less than the applicable commitment period of thirty-six months. The debtors income increased 45% that year but they did not report that to the trustee. In May 2007, during plan month fourteen, the debtors paid the trustee $2,900. This prepayment brought the total paid to slightly more than the $4,500 required by the 36-month plan. The debtors filed a motion for entry of discharge pursuant to 1328(a), which the trustee opposed. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion saying that the payments required under the plan were not complete and that a Sunahara type modification was required. Furthermore, the proposed early payoff was not in good faith because of the increased income.
The BAP affirmed. The narrow statutory question is whether the phrases completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan and completion of payments under [the] plan in 1328(a) and 1329(a) include an implied temporal requirement that the chapter 13 plan remain in effect for the applicable commitment period, as specified in the plan. Klein wrote, The interplay of 1328(a) and 1329(a) invites a race whenever a debtors income increases during the performance of a plan. The debtor tries to reach 1328(a) payment completion before a trustee or creditor forces a 1329(a)(1) increase in plan payments by way of motion made between plan confirmation and completion of payments. Rule 3015(g) requires a noticed motion before a modification can be entered. A modification requires good faith. [G]ood faith is to be assessed through the matrix of whether the plan proponent acted equitably taking into account all militating factors in a manner that
equates with the totality of circumstances. BAPCPA did not change any of this. After BAPCPA, the 1325(b)(1) applicable commitment period continues to operate as a temporal requirement. Thus, part of the statutory bargain inherent in chapter 13 is that the debtors must, for the prescribed life of the plan, run the gauntlet of exposure to trustee or creditor requests to increase payments. A debtor desiring to prepay a chapter 13 plan and obtain an early discharge without paying allowed unsecured claims in full must follow the 1329 modification procedure prescribed by Rule 3015(g). Since the debtors plan [here] would not pay all allowed unsecured claims in full and since they committed themselves to thirty-six months, their prepayment does not complete their plan for purposes of 1328(a) or 1329.
January 9, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Mtotaro@aol.com wrote: Do you have a date this case came down. I'm getting annoyed with Jurisearch because I can never find the current cases that are posted here and I want to discuss this with them
Michael R. Totaro J.D., L.LM.
Totaro & Shanahan
P.O. Box 789
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
310 573 0276 (v) 310 712 6317 (f)
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
FOUND ONLINE TODAY - NATE BERNEMANFridley v. Forsythe (In re Fridley), ---- B.R. ---- (9th Cir. BAP December, 2007) Issue: Can a debtor, at a given point into the chapter 13 plan, simply pay all of the forthcoming payments under the plan at once and receive a discharge immediately? Holding: Not without seeking a modification of the plan through a noticed motion and establishing good faith.
Judge Paul Snyder, WashingtonKlein, Montali, JuryOpinion by Klein These are under-median chapter 13 debtors. The plan confirmed in June 2006 provided for payments of $125 per month and, in paragraph 3.E.2, that the debtors would pay their projected disposable income of $0 for no less than the applicable commitment period of thirty-six months. The debtors income increased 45% that year but they did not report that to the trustee. In May 2007, during plan month fourteen, the debtors paid the trustee $2,900. This prepayment brought the total paid to slightly more than the $4,500 required by the 36-month plan. The debtors filed a motion for entry of discharge pursuant to 1328(a), which the trustee opposed. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion saying that the payments required under the plan were not complete and that a Sunahara type modification was required. Furthermore, the proposed early payoff
was not in good faith because of the increased income. The BAP affirmed. The narrow statutory question is whether the phrases completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan and completion of payments under [the] plan in 1328(a) and 1329(a) include an implied temporal requirement that the chapter 13 plan remain in effect for the applicable commitment period, as specified in the plan. Klein wrote, The interplay of 1328(a) and 1329(a) invites a race whenever a debtors income increases during the performance of a plan. The debtor tries to reach 1328(a) payment completion before a trustee or creditor forces a 1329(a)(1) increase in plan payments by way of motion made between plan confirmation and completion of payments. Rule 3015(g) requires a noticed motion before a modification can be entered. A modification requires good faith. [G]ood faith is to be assessed through the matrix of
whether the plan proponent acted equitably taking into account all militating factors in a manner that equates with the totality of circumstances. BAPCPA did not change any of this. After BAPCPA, the 1325(b)(1) applicable commitment period continues to operate as a temporal requirement. Thus, part of the statutory bargain inherent in chapter 13 is that the debtors must, for the prescribed life of the plan, run the gauntlet of exposure to trustee or creditor requests to increase payments. A debtor desiring to prepay a chapter 13 plan and obtain an early discharge without paying allowed unsecured claims in full must follow the 1329 modification procedure prescribed by Rule 3015(g). Since the debtors plan [here] would not pay all allowed unsecured claims in full and since they committed themselves to thirty-six months, their prepayment does not complete their plan for purposes of 1328(a) or 1329.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.