In Re Grutsch, 453 B.R. 420

Grutsch filed a Chapter 13 petition on February 23, 2010 with annualized income of $57,853, placing her above the Kansas median for a 1-person household.
Her original plan proposed a 60-month commitment, as required for above-median debtors under §1325(b)(4).
In August 2010, six months into the case, Grutsch retired, causing a substantial drop in income, now below the state median.
She moved to modify the plan to reduce both the monthly payments and the plan length from 60 to 36 months after retirement.
The Trustee objected only to the shortening of the plan term; the court partially granted, reducing the monthly payment but reserved ruling on the term.
The issue presented is whether post-confirmation modifications under §1329 can shorten an above-median debtor’s plan duration when her income later falls below median.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1325(b) applies to §1329 plan modifications	Grutsch contends §1325(b) is not applicable to §1329 modifications.	Trustee contends §1325(b) governs modification terms.	§1325(b) is not applicable; §1329 governs modification, but good faith under §1325(a) still applies.
Whether modification to shorten the term is permissible under good faith and changed circumstances	Change in circumstances (retirement, income drop) justifies shortening the term.	Modification to reduce term lacks sufficient basis; 60-month term should remain due to res judicata.	Modification denied to shorten below 60 months; the 60-month term remains controlling.

In re Buck, 443 B.R. 463 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2010) (supports that §1325(b) does not apply to §1329 modifications)
In re Davis, 439 B.R. 863 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) (discusses applicability of disposable income in modification; supports non-application of §1325(b) to §1329 modifications)
Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir. 1983) (outlines non-exhaustive factors (Flygare factors) for good faith modification analysis)