In re Stull, 489 B.R. 217

Quincy Stull, an above-median debtor, proposed a 60-month Chapter 13 plan funded by his disposable income.
He would pay general unsecured claims $8,440 (about 49.24% dividend) and pay a nondischargeable student loan in full with 4.75% interest outside the unsecured pool.
Total unsecured claims, including the student loan, were agreed to be $20,861; non-student unsecured claims totaled $17,139.
The plan would fund the student loan from income outside the projected disposable income (PDI) and pay interest on that debt.
Trustee argued this discriminated unfairly against other unsecured creditors and violated § 1322(b)(1) and § 1322(b)(10).
The court denied confirmation, holding that post-petition interest on a nondischargeable claim cannot be paid unless all allowed claims are paid in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discriminating in favor of a nondischargeable loan is fair	Trustee argues discrimination is unfair under §1322(b)(1).	Stull argues plan uses PDI and may discriminate to achieve a fresh start.	Denied; discrimination cannot favor nondischargeable debt when others are not paid in full.
Whether interest on a nondischargeable student loan may be paid when not all claims are paid in full	Trustee says §1322(b)(10) bars such interest absent full payment of all claims.	Stull did not argue; plan proposed interest but court must analyze statutory text.	Denied; §1322(b)(10) requires full payment of all allowed claims before post-petition interest can be paid.
Whether above-median debtors may separately classify and pay a non-dischargeable obligation from income above PDI	Trustee contends separate classification is permissible only if compliant with the baseline test.	Stull contends classification is allowed to fund the nondischargeable loan outside the unsecured pool.	Permissible in principle, but plan fails due to §1322(b)(10) interest issue.

In re Mason, 300 B.R. 379 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2003) (baseline test for unfair discrimination under 1322(b)(1))
In re Bentley, 266 B.R. 229 (1st Cir. BAP 2001) (baseline framework and equality of distribution considerations)
In re Freeman, 415 B.R. 803 (Bankr. Colo. 2009) (treating long-term unsecured debts and (b)(10) interaction)
In re Abaunza, 452 B.R. 866 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) (above-median debtors and treatment of nondischargeable debt)
In re Edmonds, 444 B.R. 898 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012) (treatment of post-petition interest on nondischargeable debt)
In re Kubeczko, not provided (see Freeman/Edmonds lineage) (Bankr. Colo. 2012) (conflicted on (b)(5) vs (b)(10) interplay)