In Re Hill, 374 B.R. 745

Debtors Hill and Garcia filed Chapter 13 petitions in Feb 2002 and 2002 respectively, proposing plans that paid 100% to unsecured creditors with 10% extra interest.
Both plans were confirmed despite claims bar dates not having passed, resulting in more filed claims than scheduled and affecting feasibility.
Trustee issued notices in 2002–2006 predicting plans would overrun the five-year term, with estimated completion dates well beyond 60 months.
Hill and Garcia faced no ongoing secured arrearages beyond a small tax lien for Hill; both relied on fixed, limited incomes and non-exempt home equity.
By May 2007 Trustee moved to dismiss for “material default” under §1307(c)(6) based on the excessive time to complete the plans, while debtors urged continuation at the current payment pace.
Court declined to dismiss, finding a discretionary balance warranted continuation of performance to allow completion under the existing confirmed plans.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether material default under §1307(c)(6) justifies dismissal	Trustee: yes, due to overlong completion	Hill/ Garcia: no, not a default since they have performed	Discretionary denial of dismissal
Whether §1322(c) 3–5 year timing governs dismissal or confirmation	Trustee: 60-month limit breached	Debtors: §1322(c) is for confirmation; §1307 governs dismissal	§1322(c) governs confirmation; §1307 governs dismissal
Whether continuation of payments beyond 60 months is permissible	Trustee: not permissible; breach	Hill/Garcia: reasonable time to complete is acceptable	Court allowed continued performance to complete plans

In re Henry, 343 B.R. 190 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006) (discusses dismissal under §1307 and 60-month plan)
In re Brown, 296 B.R. 20 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) (issues of confirmation timing and dismissal)
In re Harter, 279 B.R. 284 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2002) (timing and dismissal considerations under §1307)
In re Black, 78 B.R. 840 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1987) (reasonableness of plan performance period)