618 B.R. 730
Bankr. W.D. Pa.2020Background
- Debtor David A. Roebuck filed a Chapter 13 plan; the Western District of Pennsylvania had entered an "interim confirmation" order (a local form adequate-protection order) after the first meeting of creditors.
- The interim order authorized the Chapter 13 Trustee to begin distributions to secured and priority creditors but expressly treated the relief as "interim" and delayed final objection deadlines and final findings.
- Debtor filed an amended plan on April 27, 2020 seeking to extend the plan term beyond five years under § 1329(d), added by the CARES Act (enacted March 27, 2020), which permits modification of plans "confirmed prior" to the CARES Act for COVID-related hardship.
- No timely objections were filed to the original plan and the Trustee recommended confirmation; nevertheless, the original order had been interim (entered before March 27, 2020) rather than a final confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325.
- The Trustee supported confirmation of the amended plan despite the interim nature of the prior order; the Court questioned whether an interim confirmation qualifies as a § 1325 confirmation and the parties declined further briefing.
- The Court denied confirmation of the amended plan, holding the CARES Act relief in § 1329(d) applies only to plans actually confirmed under § 1325 before the CARES Act enactment date.
Issues
| Issue | Debtor's Argument | Trustee/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "interim confirmation" order in this district qualifies as a confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325 for purposes of § 1329(d) of the CARES Act | The absence of objections and the Trustee's recommendation meant the original plan was effectively confirmed before March 27, 2020 | Interim confirmation is a local adequate-protection mechanism, not a § 1325 confirmation; many interim plans do not yet meet § 1325 requirements | Held: Interim confirmation is not confirmation under § 1325; § 1329(d) therefore does not apply here |
| Whether § 1329(d) can be applied where no § 1325 confirmation occurred pre-CARES Act | Entitled to modification/extension because practical effect of interim order was confirmation | Statutory text requires an actual confirmation under § 1325 before the CARES Act date; court must enforce plain statutory terms | Held: § 1329(d) applies only when a plan was confirmed under § 1325 before enactment; absent that, no extension beyond 5 years is permitted |
| Whether creditors are bound by the interim order under 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a) | Debtor: interim order and lack of objections bind creditors | Court: due process and the order's language show interim orders do not produce the final binding effect of § 1325 confirmation | Held: Interim order does not have the conclusive binding effect of a § 1325 confirmation |
| Whether equity or practical concerns can overcome the statute's plain language | Debtor: equitable fairness and practical reliance justify extension | Court: cannot contravene clear statutory text; must follow Supreme Court precedents on plain meaning and statutory limits | Held: Court cannot override plain statutory requirement; equitable concerns insufficient to expand § 1329(d) eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Assembled Interests Corp., 117 B.R. 31 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1990) (discussing formal labels vs. substance in bankruptcy orders)
- In re Porreco, 426 B.R. 529 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2010) (prior decision suggesting a different view of interim confirmation; court here disagrees to that extent)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (courts must enforce unambiguous statutory text)
- Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014) (courts may not contravene explicit statutory provisions)