In re McGehan, 2013 WL 4069524

Trustee objects to confirmation in two Chapter 13 cases (McGehan and Milano) on grounds of lack of good faith.
Debtors propose 100% payment of unsecured claims over a five-year period.
Trustee argues debtors could pay in full much sooner based on disposable income.
Court adopts a narrow good-faith inquiry under §1325(b)(1)/(b)(4) and related precedents, focusing on accuracy and lack of manipulation rather to longer terms.
Debtors are above-median in Colorado; means test allows five-year plans; plans meet §1325(b)(1) but not necessarily the duration issue.
Court confirms both plans, holding five-year term permissible under BAPCPA if all unsecured claims are paid in full over the period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plans are proposed in good faith under §1325(a)(3).	Trustee argues plans are not good faith due to slow repayment.	Debtors did not misuse Code; they comply with §1325(b)(1).	Plans are in good faith; denial not warranted.
Whether the narrowed good-faith analysis under §1325(b)(1) applies.	Trustee relies on broader Estus factors.	Cranmer/Zellner favor a narrow focus on accuracy and manipulation.	Narrow focus applies; §1325(b)(1) guides analysis.
Whether five-year commitment unreasonably prolongs creditors’ recovery given income.	Five-year term is unfair and could be shortened; debtor could pay faster.	Congress allowed five-year plans for above-median debtors; duration is discretionary.	Five-year plans permitted when all unsecured claims are paid in full; no bad faith found.

In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir. 1982) (establishes Estus factors for good faith prior to 1325(b))
Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir. 1983) ( adopts Estus factors in Tenth Circuit)
Edu. Assistance Corp. v. Zellner, 827 F.2d 1222 (8th Cir. 1987) (limits good-faith inquiry after 1325(b); emphasizes accuracy/manipulation focus)
In re Cranmer, 697 F.3d 1314 (10th Cir. 2012) (recognizes the 'more narrow focus' of good faith analysis under 1325(b))