John Michael Plevyak, 5:23-bk-02307

Debtor John Michael Plevyak is in a Fourth bankruptcy case against Solar Innovations, Inc. stemming from a 2016 state court judgment of $1,182,361.31 for sabotaging Solar’s employment relationship; prior opinions found extensive bad faith and concealment.
A Third Amended Chapter 13 Plan proposes total payments of $78,700, but funding is by lump sums from pre-petition garnished funds and retirement liquidations, with a 3-year term for below-median income filers.
The plan attempts two large pre-confirmation lump sums (43,000 at confirmation and 17,425 at the end of 2026) plus smaller monthly payments funded by the debtor’s income, while the debtor’s credibility and asset disclosures were repeatedly called into question.
Solar filed objections under §1322(a)(1), §1325(a)(3), (4), and (7), asserting inadequate income submission, failure to satisfy the liquidation test, and bad faith pre- and post-petition conduct.
The Court denied confirmation, sustained the §1322(a)(4) objection, found lack of good faith under §1325(a)(3) and (7) after applying Lilley factors, and dismissed the case with a two-year bar on refiling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the plan proposed in good faith under §1325(a)(3)?	Solar argues bad faith based on long pattern of concealment and manipulation.	Plevyak contends plan is fair and feasible within statutory limits.	No; plan not proposed in good faith.
Was the petition filed in good faith under §1325(a)(7)?	Solar asserts pre-petition bad acts show lack of good faith.	Plevyak argues for honest reorganization.	No; petition filed in bad faith.
Does §1322(a)(1) require all future income to be submitted to the trustee?	Solar claims debtor failed to submit all income.	Debtor’s schedules show limited income; plan funding relies on liquidation; contestable.	Overruled; debtor’s income identified does not defeat funding.
Does §1325(a)(4) satisfy the liquidation test for unsecured claims?	Plan inadequately accounts for liquidation value and misrepresents funds.	Debtor argues adequate funding under liquidation value.	Sustained; plan fails best interests test.
Should dismissal with prejudice be entered for lack of good faith?	N/A (court-mandated remedy).	N/A.	Dismissal with prejudice appropriate; two-year bar imposed.

In re Lilley, 91 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 1996) (Lilley factors guide bad-faith analysis under §1307(c) and §1325(a))
In re Tamecki, 229 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000) (ad hoc, totality-of-the-circumstances approach to good faith)
In re Myers, 491 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2007) (good faith analysis for bankruptcy filings and plan propulsion)
In re Juzwiak, 89 F.3d 424 (7th Cir. 1996) (historical baseline for examining debtor honesty and plan purposes)
In re Love, 957 F.2d 1350 (7th Cir. 1992) (concepts surrounding honest but unfortunate debtor and good-faith assessment)