In Re Thornton
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- De Pearson
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
H. CLYDE PEARSON, Bankruptcy Judge.
The issue before the Court is whether to allow a Chapter 13 debtor a discharge pursuant to § 1328(b) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (the Code),
On November 14, 1980, the debtor filed a petition for relief under the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Code. The debtor subsequently filed a wage earner’s plan, which plan was confirmed by this Court on December 10, 1980. The debtor complied with the plan, with some difficulty, for approximately one year. In February, 1982, the debtor applied to the Court to amend her schedules to add certain post-petition creditors. The debtor’s application was granted, and the creditors, providers of medical services, were added to the debtor’s plan as unsecured creditors. The debtor subsequently applied for a “hardship” discharge pursuant to
In general, a Chapter 13 debtor is entitled to a discharge of all debts “provided for by the plan” at the completion of the confirmed Chapter 13 payment plan.
There are only two exceptions to a discharge in a completed Chapter 13 plan, long term debts and alimony, maintenance, or support obligations. A hardship discharge, however, does not discharge any debt that would be nondischargeable in Chapter 7.
There is one further exception to discharge in Chapter 13. In either a subsection (a) or subsection (b) discharge, allowed post-petition claims may be excepted from discharge if prior approval of the trustee was practicable but was not obtained.
Section 1305(c) of the Code provides that a claim for an otherwise allowable post-petition consumer debt shall be disallowed if the holder of the claim knew or should have known that the trustee’s approval of the obligation was practicable and was not obtained.
See
The Code places an equal burden on the debtor. Presumably, the debtor knows that he or she is prohibited from incurring post-petition debt without approval of the trustee. A claim allowed under
The effect of these two sections read together is to protect the innocent post-petition claimant. If the claimant had no knowledge of the requirement for approval, or if that approval was not practicable, then the claimant is not penalized by having the claim disallowed. Further, if a debtor incurs debt at the expense of an innocent claimant without prior approval by the trustee, that debt will be nondischargeable, and the debtor will remain liable to repay the obligation in full. An allowed claim may be discharged under
In the present case, claims of providers of medical services were allowed as post-petition claims under
It is, therefore, hereby
ORDERED
that the debtor in this case be granted a “hardship” discharge pursuant to