midpage
460 B.R. 708
Bankr. N.D. Tex.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • Debtors filed a voluntary chapter 13 petition on January 31, 2011.
  • An initial plan was denied, leading Debtors to file a revised Amended Plan on May 23, 2011.
  • The Trustee objected on May 25, 2011, alleging unfair discrimination under section 1322(b)(1).
  • A confirmation hearing was held July 21, 2011, with arguments from both sides.
  • Debtors owe $115,651.58 in non-priority unsecured claims, including $65,439.00 student loan claims.
  • The UCP amount agreed for unsecured creditors is $12,449.40; student loan creditors receive direct payments outside the UCP.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plan discrimination is unfair under 1322(b)(1) Trustee contends discrimination favors student loans excessively. King plan justifies discrimination to treat student loans separately and does not diminish non-student creditors' recovery. Overruled; plan does not unfairly discriminate.
Whether Simmons test remains applicable post-BAPCPA Simmons should be modified or discarded due to 2005 amendments. Simmons remains applicable with modifications reflecting BAPCPA. Simmons remains applicable with the 2005 amendments modifications.
Whether the plan complies with 1325 and provides fair share of UCP Plan shortchanges non-student creditors by concentrating UCP on student loans. Dispositive income to student loans does not reduce non-student creditors' pro rata share of the UCP. Plan complies; non-student creditors receive no worse than their pro rata share.

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Simmons, 288 B.R. 737 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2003) (two-prong test for unfair discrimination of student loan debt; rational purpose and fair share of UCP)
  • In re Bentley, 266 B.R. 229 (1st Cir. BAP 2001) (discrimination analysis pre-BAPCPA guidance cited for comparison)
  • In re Abaunza, 452 B.R. 866 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2011) (post-BAPCPA view supporting use of discretionary income with respect to projected disposable income)
  • Sharp, 415 B.R. 803 (Bankr.D.Colo.2009) (recognizes discrepanсy between projected disposable income and actual discretionary income)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In Re King
Court Name: United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas
Date Published: Sep 23, 2011
Citations: 460 B.R. 708; 2011 WL 4458921; 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3661; 19-70050
Docket Number: 19-70050
Court Abbreviation: Bankr. N.D. Tex.
Log In