Renee A Quintyne, 610 B.R. 462

Debtor Renee A. Quintyne filed Chapter 13 on April 2, 2015; plan confirmed July 14, 2015 calling for $214.94/month for 60 months.
In August 2018 the Court approved Debtor’s request to finance a new vehicle (monthly car payment $471.95); Debtor said she would move to amend her plan to account for the change but never filed an amended plan.
Debtor later filed amended Schedules I/J showing monthly net disposable income of $8.39 and fell behind on plan payments; as of June 20, 2019 she was $875.06 in arrears, having made 53 of 60 payments (total paid $11,391.82).
Debtor moved for a hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b), arguing the car financing was an intervening event, modification is impracticable, and unsecured creditors would receive no less than in a hypothetical Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 Trustee opposed, arguing the Debtor failed to prove the inability to complete payments was beyond her control, offered only conclusory evidence, and made no effort to increase income; parties agree § 1328(b)(2) likely satisfied (no creditor prejudice).
The Court denied the hardship discharge, finding the Debtor failed to meet § 1328(b)(1) (lack of unforeseeable intervening event and insufficient factual support) and expressing similar concerns about § 1328(b)(3).

Issue	Debtor's Argument	Trustee's Argument	Held
Whether Debtor’s failure to complete plan payments was due to circumstances for which she should not justly be held accountable (§1328(b)(1))	Breakdown of old car and need to finance a replacement were intervening events beyond Debtor’s control; she made payments until disposable income fell to $8.39	The car financing was known and approved in 2018; Debtor previously represented she could afford plan after financing; current arrears are due to other increased expenses and lack of effort to increase income	Denied — Debtor failed to show an unforeseeable, uncontrollable intervening event or provide factual support tying the arrears to conduct beyond her control
Whether value distributed under the plan equals or exceeds what unsecured creditors would receive in Chapter 7 (§1328(b)(2))	Debtor: distributions would not be less than Chapter 7 result	Trustee: conceded creditors would not be prejudiced	Held — parties agree §1328(b)(2) is satisfied
Whether modification of the plan under §1329 is impracticable (§1328(b)(3))	Debtor: monthly disposable income is under $10, so plan modification is impracticable	Trustee: Debtor failed to explain the changed expenses or demonstrate why modification is impracticable	Not reached as dispositive on (1); Court expressed doubts that Debtor met (3) given lack of explanation

Harris v. Viegelahn, 135 S. Ct. 1829 (2015) (Chapter 13 discharge and fresh-start purpose of the Bankruptcy Code)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (general principle that bankruptcy law offers a fresh start)