Bankruptcy: Plan Confirmation - Value of Vehicle

     In the case of In re: Rodnok the United States Bankruptcy Court at Richmond, Virginia, sustained a creditor's objection to the debtors' second modified Chapter 13 plan based upon the valuation of collateral. 

     In Rodnok the creditor, who had a Ford Aerostar van as collateral, filed a proof of claim stating the value as $13,075, which the debtors had not objected to. The debtors argued that the value of the van was already decided in the approved first modified plan to be $9,300, and that a redetermination was barred by the doctrine or res judicata. The creditor argued that the Court was not bound by the value determined in the first modified plan when it was determining approval of the second modified plan. 

     The Court stated that in determining whether a secured creditor should be bound to the value of its collateral as provided for in a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, the Court had to look at Bankruptcy Code §506 (a). This code section states that a claim is a secured claim to the extent of the value of the creditor's collateral and is unsecured as to the extent that the debt owed to the creditor exceeds the value of the collateral. Value of the collateral can be determined in any hearing concerning the disposition or use of the collateral or the confirmation of a plan affecting the secured creditor's interest. Bankruptcy Rule 3012 requires that notice of the hearing be given to the holder of the secured claim before a court may determine the value of that creditor's collateral. 

     In Rodnok the Court determined that the creditor was not provided the appropriate notice that the debtors were going to modify their secured claim, and therefore the creditor cannot be bound by the value assigned in the debtors' first modified plan, which was book value. 

     The Court found that the value of the van was $12,000. The creditor based its determination that the van had a value of $13,075 on the N.A.D.A. As evidenced by the certificate of title, the van came with numerous extras, adding to the overall value of the vehicle. The debtors claimed a deduction for excessive mileage, but the Court noted that at the first meeting of the creditors the debtors stated that the van had only 25,000 miles on it. Overall, the Court found that the value of the van more closely resembled that proposed by the creditor. Accordingly, the Court sustained the creditor's objection to the debtors' second modified plan. 

     The lesson of Rodnok, as it is in so many cases, is that creditors should retain the serves of counsel who has extensive experience in creditor representation.

Bankruptcy: Chapter 13 Plan Confirmation - Good Faith

     Two cases decided by Judge Tice of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, demonstrate a lack of good faith in the debtors' proposed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans.

     In the case of In Re Oliver, Judge Tice denied plan confirmation for several reasons: the low percentage of the repayment of debt (about ten percent to unsecureds), the length of the plan (only three years), the "peculiar nature" of the unsecured claims, and the fact that the petition was filed after another court concluded that a major debt listed in this plan was nondischargeable under the debtors' prior Chapter 7 petition. Each of these reasons went against a finding that the plan was "proposed in good faith" under Bankruptcy Code §1325(a)(3). The matter was brought before Judge Tice upon an objection by a bank, whose claim comprised 80% of the total unsecured debt.
     In the case of In Re Kasun, Judge Tice denied plan confirmation for two reasons: a lack of good faith (since the plan discriminated against the debtors' unsecured creditors) and the payment of a nonessential luxury item. The debtors, proceeding in bankruptcy without an attorney, purposed that they retain a sailboat, on which a secured creditor had a $32,000.00 lien, with a $600.00 per month payment, and for which the debtors paid a boat-slip charge of $172.00 per month, while the plan proposed paying unsecured creditors only 34.9% of their claims. The Bankruptcy Trustee filed the objection.
     The lesson of Oliver and Kasun - read Chapter 13 plans carefully, do not take proposals for granted and seek competent legal advice when necessary.

Bankruptcy: Poor Debtor's Exemption - Objection in a Chapter 13 Plan

     In the case of In re Bonner, Judge Tice of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, ruled that a credit union, which did not perfect its lien on a car the debtor purchased with a credit union loan, could not prevent confirmation of the debtor's Chapter 13 plan. The Court did, however, sustain the credit union's objection to the debtor's claim of a $2,000 "poor debtor's exemption" in the car under Virginia Code §34-5.

     In Bonner the credit union maintained that its purchase money security interest, though not perfected as to third parties, could be enforced in a Chapter 13 case notwithstanding Bankruptcy Code §544(a). The Court ruled, though, that the avoidance powers under §544 extend to trustees in Chapter 13. The Court cited the case of In re Freeman, where another court had held that a Chapter 13 debtor shares the trustee's status as a hypothetical lien creditor under §544. Accordingly, the Court ruled that since either the debtor or trustee is deemed to have exercised the hypothetical lien creditor's rights at the time of filing, the transfer of the security interest by the debtor to the credit union had been nullified. The claim filed by the credit union was therefore unsecured, and the debtor had properly provided for it under the plan.
     Nevertheless, the Court ruled that pursuant to Virginia Code §34-5, the poor debtor's exemption could not be claimed against a debt for the purchase of such property or any part thereof. Unlike the exception included in Virginia Code §34-26(8), which provides only a valid purchase money security interest with priority over the exemption, the restriction in §34-5 is not conditioned on the creditor possessing an enforceable lien. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the credit union's failure to perfect its security interest simply had no bearing. Accordingly, the Court sustained the credit union's objection to the poor debtor's exemption.

Bankruptcy: Homeowners' Association Assessments and the Chapter 13 Automatic Stay

  The United States Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, Virginia, in the case of Montclair Property Owner’s Association, Inc. v. Reynard, ruled that a homeowner’s association may collect post-petition assessments from a Chapter 13 debtor’s property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate.

     In making its decision, the bankruptcy court noted that courts have taken different approaches with respect to the extent of the bankruptcy estate after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan and, indeed, whether there is an estate after confirmation.  The bankruptcy court ruled, however, that Bankruptcy Code §1306(a) includes in the Chapter 13 estate all property acquired by the debtor after confirmation, including future earnings.  If the Chapter 13 estate did not have these assets, it could not pay pursuant to the plan.

     In this case, no relief from the automatic stay was necessary, as there was no judgment yet obtained to execute upon.  However, the court did rule that no relief from the automatic stay is necessary to collect post-petition homeowner’s assessments from property that is not property of the estate.  Collection activities may only be directed to property of the debtors, not property of the estate.  All post-confirmation earnings are property of the estate.