Bankruptcy Mastery

Becoming a better bankruptcy lawyer

  • Home
  • About Cathy
  • Contact Cathy
  • Articles by Topic
    • Attorneys fees
    • Bankruptcy Practice
    • Before filing
    • Business bankruptcy
    • Cases new & significant
    • Counseling clients
    • Family Law in Bankruptcy
    • Means test
    • Opinionated
    • Real property
    • Rule 3002.1
    • Tax
  • Table of Contents
  • Start Here

Differing Dollars In Chapter 13 Plan vs. Claim

By Cathy Moran, Esq. Filed Under: Bankruptcy Practice

Who wins when the mortgage arrearages in the Chapter 13 plan are less than the  filed proof of claim?

I have to admit that this has puzzled me for years, and the  approaches of the three Chapter 13 trustees I practice before are different and without a an articulated theoretic basis.

So I embraced a case recently featured at ConsiderChapter13.org:  Euliano, a bankruptcy decision by Judge Boroff in Massachusetts.  His explanation is both logical and clear.  The confirmed plan controls the treatment of the claim;  the allowed proof of claim controls the amount of the claim.

Therefore, the plan term provided that the arrears would be cured;  the proof of claim defined how much was required to effect cure.

In Euliano, the plan contemplated curing mortgage arrears set out as $8,000, when the proof of claim came in for twice that.  Neither debtor, trustee, nor creditor took any steps to resolve the issue pre confirmation and the plan was confirmed.

The plan pot was therefore insufficient to pay the filed proof of claim, which is presumptively valid, until someone contests it.

After informal efforts to get the debtors to address and resolve the feasibility issue, the trustee brought a motion to dismiss.  After scolding all parties for inattention, Judge Boroff dismissed the  debtor’s case  for delay prejudicial to creditors.

Lesson for debtor’s counsel is clearly to identify inconsistencies between plan and claim, and take prompt action to either amend the plan to conform to the claim, or object to the claim to get a determination of just what is required to cure.

[The decision is found at 2010 Bankr. Lexis 4253 and 2010 WL 4923649.]

Image courtesy of superwebdeveloper

More from my site

  • Axe Falls On Debtor’s CounselAxe Falls On Debtor’s Counsel
  • Chapter 13 NoLook Fees: Fair vs. AffordableChapter 13 NoLook Fees: Fair vs. Affordable
  • Fixing the Omission from the SchedulesFixing the Omission from the Schedules
  • Good Service Isn’t Automatic When The Stay Isn’t EitherGood Service Isn’t Automatic When The Stay Isn’t Either
  • BankruptcyMastery Chosen One of Best Blogs of 2013BankruptcyMastery Chosen One of Best Blogs of 2013
  • Sua Sponte Monetary Sanctions Against CounselSua Sponte Monetary Sanctions Against Counsel

Filed Under: Bankruptcy Practice

Comments

  1. Jed says

    February 1, 2011 at 12:32 am

    Judge Boroff noted his disagreement with another case by Judge Hoffman in the same district, who ruled that the plan won and any remaining unpaid balance would be collectible after the plan ended. I believe one of these two cases cited to a New Hampshire case in agreement with Judge Hoffman.

    • Cathy says

      February 1, 2011 at 4:17 am

      So my confusion on this subject is justified?

  2. George E. Bourguignon, Jr. says

    June 24, 2011 at 2:51 am

    Yes, much confusion over this topic.  The question is whether this district split will end up at the BAP or at the 1st Circuit in the future.

[footer_backtotop]

Copyright © 2025 ·Prose · Genesis Framework by StudioPress · WordPress

Theme customization by Rowboat Media LLC