ILNews

Bankruptcy Court updating procedure for Chapter 13 confirmation hearings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana will be changing how it handles Chapter 13 confirmation hearings beginning July 1.

Under the new procedure, the filing of an amended plan will vacate a hearing scheduled on a creditor’s objection to confirmation only if in advance of the hearing: 1) the creditor withdraws the objection; 2) an agreed entry, signed by the debtor and objecting creditor is filed; or 3) a motion to continue the hearing is filed and granted.

Typically, the Bankruptcy Court has vacated a hearing on a creditor’s objection to confirmation if an amended plan is filed prior to the hearing, regardless of whether the amended plan actually resolves or addresses the objection. The creditor is then ordered to file another objection to the amended plan, even if the amended plan doesn’t alter the creditor’s treatment from the previous plan.

A release from the court announcing the change says creditors’ counsel have pointed out that this procedure runs afoul of 11 U.S.C. Section 1323(c), with respect to objections by secured creditors.

“The Court also observes that its current procedure of automatically vacating a hearing on an objection to confirmation upon the filing of an amended plan arguably encourages some debtors to file an amended plan on the eve of the confirmation hearing with the hope of simply delaying the adjudication of a valid creditor objection,” the June 17 order by Chief Judge James K. Coachys says. “While the Court understands why debtors may wish to delay litigation, the practice of filing an amended plan that does not address or resolve an objection often leads to an inefficient use of limited judicial resources.”

Under the new procedure, the filing of an amended plan prior to a scheduled confirmation hearing will always vacate the hearing as to an objection to confirmation filed by the Chapter 13 trustee, as is the current procedure.

The full order is available on the court’s website.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT