Skip to main content

§ 1325(a)(5)

In re Davis

Ruling
Plan could be confirmed despite noncompliant treatment of three claims where creditors did not object.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 trustee filed an objection to confirmation of the debtor's plan, asserting that the treatment of the claims of three secured judgment creditors under the proposed plan did not comply with the requirements imposed by 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(B). The debtor argued that, because none of those creditors had objected to the proposed plan, 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(A) was satisfied and § 1325(a)(5)(B) need not be considered.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Davis Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on November 12, 2008 , LexisNexis #0109-024

In re Harrison

Ruling
Debtor who was ineligible for discharge could modify interest rate on secured claim as part of plan but modification would not have effect post-bankruptcy.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and submitted a modified chapter 13 plan. A creditor objected to confirmation of the modified plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Harrison Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on October 14, 2008 , LexisNexis #1108-090

In re Espinoza

Ruling
Plan proposing "step up" in monthly payments to secured creditor could not be confirmed.
Procedural posture

After debtors, a married couple, sought confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan, a secured creditor filed an objection claiming that the plan was not properly confirmed because it failed to provide for "equal monthly payments" in an amount sufficient to adequately protect the creditor's interests during the term of the plan. At issue was whether, notwithstanding that objection, the plan complied with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Espinoza Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 01, 2008 , LexisNexis #0808-120

In re Espinoza

Ruling
Plan calling for two-tiered payments did not meet requirement of equal monthly payments on allowed secured claims and could not be confirmed.
Procedural posture

A creditor objected to the confirmation of the debtors' proposed chapter 13 plan on the ground that the plan's unequal monthly payments did not comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(4)(B)(iii)(I).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Espinoza Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 01, 2008 , LexisNexis #1008-015

In re Sanford

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to debtor's proposal to pay secured claim directly to IRS instead of through chapter 13 trustee.
Procedural posture

The second amended chapter 13 plan filed by the debtors came on for confirmation. The creditor, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed objection thereto, challenging the debtors' proposal that they would disburse payments, and otherwise did not comply with 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 1325(a)(5) and 1326(b).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Sanford Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 02, 2008 , LexisNexis #0908-126

Thompson v. GMAC (In re Thompson)

Ruling
Debtor not entitled to turnover of repossessed vehicle without providing adequate protection payments.
Procedural posture

Following a repossesion, plaintiff debtor filed an adversary proceeding against defendant creditor seeking turnover of his vehicle under 11 U.S.C.S. § 542(a).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Thompson v. GMAC (In re Thompson) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 23, 2008 , LexisNexis #0708-022

In re Kleeb

Ruling
Creditor entitled to interest on loan that was modified as part of debtor's plan.
Procedural posture

In their chapter 13 proposed plan, debtors proposed to pay a creditor's secured claim in full at its 0 percent contract interest rate. They also sought to modify the terms of the contract to extend the repayment period by almost four years. The creditor objected to confirmation of the plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Kleeb Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 23, 2008 , LexisNexis #0608-128

DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC v. Ballard (In re Ballard

Ruling
Creditor entitled to pursue unsecured claim for deficiency on "910 vehicle" pursuant to contract and state law.
Procedural posture

Appellant company objected to the confirmation of appellees, debtors', plans in two chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. Because the proceedings involved the same legal issue, whether surrender of the debtors' vehicles fully satisfied the company's claim under the retail installment contracts, the bankruptcy court consolidated argument and overruled the company's objections. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC v. Ballard (In re Ballard Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 19, 2008 , LexisNexis #0608-056

DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC v. Rivera (In re Rivera)

Ruling
Confirmation reversed where payments to creditor were left to trustee's discretion and not in specified equal monthly amounts.
Procedural posture

Appellant, a secured creditor in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings, challenged the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana's confirmation of appellee debtors' chapter 13 plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC v. Rivera (In re Rivera) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 02, 2008 , LexisNexis #0608-023

In re Sanchez

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to failure to provide for equal monthly payments.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed for relief under chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and submitted a proposed plan. A creditor filed an objection to confirmation of the plan, claiming that the plan did not comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Sanchez Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on March 19, 2008 , LexisNexis #0408-091