Christopher Zvoch, 618 B.R. 734

Debtor Christopher Zvoch filed Chapter 13 in April 2017 and originally obtained court approval to finance a replacement vehicle (a 2013 Camaro) with payments of $514.77/month, incorporated into his confirmed plan.
Some time later the Camaro account was paid off and the trustee learned the Camaro had been traded for a 2016 Acura MDX financed for $33,674.10 with monthly payments of $719.52—an acquisition the Debtor did not seek court approval for.
At a status conference the Debtor admitted he purchased the Acura, had been making payments outside the plan, and had relocated to Texas without notifying counsel or the Court.
The Debtor moved for nunc pro tunc approval of the Acura financing and filed amended Schedules I/J and a plan modification increasing plan payments and claiming substantial new funds for unsecured creditors.
The Trustee opposed, arguing there was no emergency, the Acura was an unnecessary/luxury upgrade well beyond prior approval, and the higher payment was infeasible given plan arrears.
The Court denied the nunc pro tunc motion: it concluded retroactive approval was barred by Supreme Court precedent and, on the merits, the financing was neither shown to be reasonable nor necessary and would prejudice creditors.

Issue	Debtor's Argument	Trustee's Argument	Held
Availability of nunc pro tunc approval for unauthorized postpetition financing	Seek retroactive approval of the Acura purchase because it was needed and should be treated as authorized	Retroactive approval improper; Court should not create retroactive facts and debtor failed to seek prior approval	Denied — Acevedo Feliciano limits nunc pro tunc relief to court errors, not debtor misconduct; retroactive approval would create facts that never existed
Whether the Acura financing is reasonable and necessary (would justify approval if timely)	Acura was required for Debtor’s personal/professional needs; Debtor offered to increase plan payments to accommodate it	Transaction was an unnecessary luxury, far costlier than prior approval, would divert >$200/month from creditors and is likely infeasible given arrears	Denied on merits — Debtor failed to show financing was reasonable/necessary; would harm creditors and may indicate bad faith
Requirement to obtain prior court approval for postpetition financing in this district	(Implicit) Debtor proceeded without court approval	Local plan form, local rules, and Court procedures require prior approval for any postpetition financing	Court: prior approval is required in this district; Debtor violated that requirement

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020) (nunc pro tunc relief limited to orders that "reflect the reality" of what occurred and cannot create facts that never existed)
F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, 844 F.2d 99 (3d Cir. 1988) (Third Circuit precedent on standards for extraordinary nunc pro tunc relief)
In re Arkansas, 798 F.2d 645 (3d Cir. 1986) (Third Circuit discussion of retroactive relief principles)
In re Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405 (3d Cir. 1989) (confirmed plan binds debtor and creditors)
Waldron v. Brown (In re Waldron), 536 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2008) (debtor’s ongoing duty to disclose changes in financial situation)
U.S. Trustee v. Cortez, 457 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2006) (debtor must amend schedules to include subsequent income)