Calvin Scott Page and Helen Villabane Page, 658 B.R. 178

Calvin Scott Page and Helen Villabane Page filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in May 2023, owing several vehicle loans, including two for recently purchased vehicles.
Debtors proposed to fully repay certain long-term vehicle loans within the five-year bankruptcy plan, ahead of contractual maturity dates, resulting in larger monthly payments to those lenders.
The accelerated payments would reduce the funds available for unsecured creditors, sparking an objection from the Chapter 13 trustee.
The debtors also claimed larger expense deductions on their means test form (Form 122C-2) by reamortizing these loans, thus reducing their calculated disposable income.
The trustee objected to both the plan and the means test calculations, asserting these moves hurt unsecured creditors and were not in good faith.
The case saw multiple hearings and briefing on whether the debtors’ proposed treatment of vehicle loans (especially "910 claims") was permissible under the Bankruptcy Code.

Issue	Plaintiffs’ Argument (Pages)	Defendant's Argument (Trustee)	Held
Must 910 claims be reamortized and paid in full within the Chapter 13 plan term?	Yes – Debtors argue the “hanging paragraph” of §1325(a) mandates full repayment of 910 claims within plan term.	No – Trustee argues the Code does not require reamortization; cure-and-maintain is still allowed for long-term loans.	No, court holds the Code does not require reamortization; debtors can cure and maintain under §1322(b)(5).
Can debtors use reamortized plan payments for expense deductions in the means test?	Yes – The debtors claim deductions should be based on plan’s proposed payments.	No – Trustee argues only contractually due prepetition payments are deductible.	No, only prepetition contractual payments can be used in the means test.
Is the proposed plan confirmable under Chapter 13 good faith requirements?	Yes – Pages contend their plan is permissible and aligns with the Code.	No – Trustee asserts plan unfairly manipulates Code to favor secured creditors over unsecured, showing lack of good faith.	Plan is not confirmable; reamortization and inflated deductions are not in good faith.
Should the case be dismissed?	No – Pages seek plan confirmation or continued proceedings.	Yes – Trustee seeks dismissal due to unconfirmable plan and undue delay.	Yes, case dismissed for failure to confirm a plan and undue delay.

Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (interest rate determination for cramdown in Chapter 13)
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (core jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings)
Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (forward-looking approach for projected disposable income in bankruptcy)
Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 562 U.S. 61 (means test interpretation for disposable income)
Lewis v. Mfrs. Nat’l Bank, 364 U.S. 603 (avoidance of windfalls in bankruptcy)