Kimberly Ann Chapman
24-60759
Bankr. N.D. OhioJun 6, 2025Background
- Kimberly Ann Chapman, acting pro se, filed multiple amended Chapter 13 plans; the case has been pending for almost a year as objections persisted.
- One disputed provision in the most recent plans was Chapman's attempt to pay general unsecured creditors directly, instead of via the Chapter 13 trustee.
- The Chapter 13 Trustee and Selene Finance LP objected to the plan's direct payment provisions for unsecured claims.
- Chapman also asserted she is a New York-registered trust/entity with purported secured party rights but filed her bankruptcy as an individual.
- The court separately addressed Chapman's improper practice of embedding motions within other pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Chapman's Argument | Trustee/Selene's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct payment of general unsecured creditors | Debtor should pay these creditors directly | Only trustee should pay unsecured creditors | Such a plan is unconfirmable if objected to |
| Direct payment of mortgage/secured claims | Debtor may pay mortgage directly | Trustee presumption per administrative order | Direct payment must be approved by motion and notice |
| Status as a trust (eligibility for Ch. 13) | Claims trust status, with rights under UCC | Not eligible if not an "individual" | Trusts cannot file Ch. 13; only individuals are eligible |
| Motions embedded in other pleadings | Filed requests for relief within responses | Argue procedure is improper | Embedded motions stricken; must be separately filed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hanson, 310 B.R. 131 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2004) (most courts reject Chapter 13 plans with direct payments to unsecured creditors)
- In re Bettger, 105 B.R. 607 (Bankr. D. Or. 1989) (direct payment to unsecured creditors complicates oversight by courts/trustees)
- Barbee, 82 B.R. 470 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1988) (trustees must ensure accountability in Chapter 13 plan payments; direct payment impedes this)
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (trusts and other artificial entities must appear through counsel)
- C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (trusts may not appear pro se in federal court)
- Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979) (property interests in bankruptcy are determined by state law unless federal law supplants)