§ 47.2     Preconfirmation Adequate Protection after BAPCPA
Cite as:    Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 47.2, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
[1]

Lessors of personal property and some purchase money secured creditors are granted new rights by BAPCPA in the period between filing and confirmation of a Chapter 13 case. As explained above,1 § 1326(a) was amended by BAPCPA to require preconfirmation payments to lessors of personal property and to the holders of allowed purchase money claims secured by personal property. Payments begin not later than 30 days after the petition.

[2]

For a lessor of personal property, the required payment is the amount “scheduled” in the lease “for that portion of the obligation that becomes due after the order for relief.”2 For a purchase money creditor secured by personal property, the preconfirmation payment is in an amount that “provides adequate protection . . . for that portion of the obligation that becomes due after the order for relief.”3

[3]

Use of the phrase “adequate protection” to describe the required preconfirmation payment to an allowed purchase money lienholder is pregnant with difficulties. Whenever required, adequate protection may be provided under § 361 of the Bankruptcy Code4 in several ways—by periodic cash payments, by an additional replacement lien or by providing the “indubitable equivalent” of the secured party’s interest in the collateral. However provided, adequate protection has always related to the value of collateral and any decrease in value that results from the debtor’s use, sale or lease of property during a bankruptcy case.5 This is explicit in the statutory definition of adequate protection in § 361.

[4]

New § 1326(a)(1)(C) requires adequate protection of the portion of an obligation that becomes due after the Chapter 13 petition. The portion of a debt that becomes due after a bankruptcy petition may or may not bear any meaningful relationship to the decrease in value of the collateral that occurs (or doesn’t occur) as a result of the debtor’s use or the automatic stay. How do you calculate adequate protection of an installment payment under a car loan? If the payment that becomes due by contract in the month after the petition is $500 but the car depreciates only $150 during that month, is adequate protection for § 1326(a)(1)(C) purposes $150—the decrease in value of the collateral—or is it the lost use value of $500 for a month—approximately $4.17 (at 10 percent interest)?

[5]

There is the fundamental question whether § 361 of the Bankruptcy Code is the proper source for the meaning of “adequate protection” in new § 1326(a)(1)(C). As quoted above, § 361 defines adequate protection when “required under section 362, 363 or 364 of this title.”6 Of course, the adequate protection entitlement of a purchase money lender prior to confirmation in a Chapter 13 case arises from § 1326(a)(1)(C), not from any of the sections cross-referenced in § 361.

[6]

The powerful rule of statutory construction that the same words should mean the same thing throughout the related provisions of a single statute strongly supports the argument that adequate protection in § 1326(a)(1)(C) incorporates the conditions and concepts in § 361. In other words, § 1326(a)(1)(C) can reasonably be read to require adequate protection payments prior to confirmation in a Chapter 13 case only when required under §§ 362, 363 or 364 consistent with § 361. By this logic, debtors who are not using the collateral subject to a lien, debtors who intend to surrender collateral and debtors who are no longer in possession of personal property subject to a lien escape the preconfirmation adequate protection payment requirement in § 1326(a)(1)(C). This is not obvious from the wording of the section.

[7]

If Congress intended Chapter 13 debtors to pay allowed purchase money secured claim holders the actual amount that becomes due between the petition and confirmation, the reference to “adequate protection” would be unnecessary and a mandate to “maintain contract payments” or similar words would have been used.7 The peculiar adequate protection required by § 1326(a)(1)(C) only applies to the portion of the allowed claim attributable to the purchase of personal property. Further, it is confined to the portion of that portion that becomes due after the petition.

[8]

How will this combination of conditions be applied, for example, to an undersecured car loan in a Chapter 13 case? What portion of the monthly installment payment that comes due during the first month after the petition is attributable to the purchase of the car? Is the depreciation in value of the car during that month a limit on the amount required from the debtor? Outside of § 1326(a)(1)(C), adequate protection would be measured against the decrease in value of collateral as it affects the lienholder’s “interest.” Section 1326(a)(1)(C) limits that “interest” to a significantly lesser amount—the amount attributable to the purchase of the property and then only that portion that becomes due after the petition. To give sense to all of these conditions, the ordinary entitlement to adequate protection must be trimmed.

[9]

Determining the portion of an allowed claim secured by personal property that is attributable to the purchase price may require examination of the loan documents.8 To the extent the debt includes advances for items other than the purchase price—for example, a warranty, taxes, insurance, registration fees, the payoff of other debt—the claim is not entitled to adequate protection prior to confirmation in a Chapter 13 case. If the claim includes amounts other than the purchase price, the portion that becomes due after the petition must be allocated among those components.

[10]

The early reported decisions interpreting the new preconfirmation adequate protection requirement in § 1326(a)(1)(C) are sure to ignite healthy debate. In In re Smith,9 the day before the Chapter 13 petition, a car lender obtained a judgment for the contract debt of $9,400. The car lender filed a proof of claim and checked the box to indicate the amount due was the entire $9,400 judgment. When the debtor did not commence adequate protection payments consistent with § 1326(a)(1)(C), the judgment lienholder moved to dismiss the Chapter 13 case.

[11]

The bankruptcy court acknowledged that the car lender’s security interest and lien survived entry of the prepetition judgment and that judgment did not destroy the purchase money character of the debt for purposes of § 1326(a)(1)(C). However, no adequate protection right arose under § 1326(a)(1)(C) because no portion of the judgment debt “becomes due after the order for relief”:

The automatic right to receive adequate protection payments set forth in Section 1326(a)(1)(C) is only for portions of obligations that become due after the order for relief. . . . [N]o such automatic duty was imposed upon the debtor to make specific adequate protection payments as to Movant’s judgment claim. Having no duty to make such payments, Section 1307(c)(4) which lists failure to commence making timely payments under Section 1326 as a basis for dismissal, is inapplicable to the facts of this case.10
[12]

Interestingly, the Smith court noted that the car lender could file a motion consistent with § 362(d)(1) seeking relief from the stay based on lack of adequate protection—a separate but perhaps parallel route to adequate protection prior to confirmation. The court observed that if the Chapter 13 plan proposed to “de-accelerate the judgment including resuming payment of installments due postpetition under the original contract,” then a portion of the obligation might become due after the petition, triggering the preconfirmation adequate protection requirement in § 1326(a)(1)(C).

[13]

Smith should be a wake-up call to lienholders that rush to judgment against a debtor before the filing of a Chapter 13 petition. The logic of Smith might extend to creditors that have exercised contractual acceleration before the debt—positioning the debtor to claim that the entire debt was due before the petition and no portion of the debt “becomes due” after the petition. This would take § 1326(a)(1)(C) off the table for all lienholders that have noticed acceleration under the contract. The remedy for prepetition eagerness would be as described in Smith—a motion for relief from the stay for lack of adequate protection.

[14]

Reflecting an appreciation of adequate protection analysis under § 361, the bankruptcy court in In re Brown11 held that Chapter 13 debtors can provide preconfirmation adequate protection to a lienholder under § 1326(a)(1)(C) based on depreciation of the collateral. Pursuant to a local plan form, the debtor in Brown provided preconfirmation adequate protection by making payments to the Chapter 13 trustee sufficient to protect allowed secured claim holders from depreciation. These payments were subject to an “administrative lien.” The mechanics of this administrative lien and the exclusion of postpetition interest from the adequate protection allowed by § 1326(a)(1)(C) were explained by the court:

Section 361 allows for various alternatives for providing adequate protection. What the debtor has provided in her plan in this case is a lien on earmarked payments made to the Chapter 13 Trustee. . . . Including interest as a component of adequate protection for a secured creditor would effect a change in pre-BAPCPA practice. . . . Courts have rejected the argument that adequate protection payments should contain an interest component, except in the case of an oversecured creditor which has an equity cushion. . . . The amount of the pre-confirmation adequate protection payments under § 1326(a)(1)(C) should be based on the depreciation of the collateral that occurs between the time the case is filed and the date of confirmation or dismissal and the payments should be applied to principal only.12
[15]

The familiar analysis of adequate protection in Brown stands in contrast to the startling construction of § 1326(a)(1)(C) by the bankruptcy court in In re DeSardi.13 By local rules in the Southern District of Texas, adequate protection payments on vehicles in Chapter 13 cases prior to confirmation are granted an automatic administrative priority in the amount of 1.5 percent per month of the value of a car. As explained by the DeSardi court:

[T]he lien holder will be given an administrative claim, with priority under § 507(b), in an amount equal to 1.5% of the value of the vehicle for each 30 days that elapses from the date of the adequate protection order. . . . [T]his Court finds that the phrase “actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate” in § 503 includes adequate protection payments paid to enable the debtors to use their vehicles. Debtors in chapter 13 often need their vehicles to drive to work, which in turn allows for preservation of the estate. . . . Actual use of the vehicle provides a direct benefit to the estate in the form of continued payments when the car is used to facilitate work. . . . Consequently, the adequate protection claim provided by [local rule] receives administrative priority under § 503(b).14
[16]

Treating preconfirmation adequate protection payments on vehicles as administrative expenses under § 503(b) “with priority under § 507(b)” elevates those payments to “superpriority” status—a very controversial outcome.15 The effect in DeSardi was to subordinate the debtor’s attorney’s fees to the adequate protection payment rights of the vehicle lienholder. Adequate protection payments for purposes of this superpriority were calculated “based on the average of the NADA retail and wholesale values, unless the court orders otherwise.”16 To determine the principal amount due to the lienholder at the time of confirmation, the DeSardi court instructed, “the § 507(b) payments will be (i) deducted from the value of the vehicle, if the value of the vehicle is less than the lien, resulting in a Confirmation Date Value; and (ii) applied to interest if the value of the vehicle is greater than the lien.”17

[17]

DeSardi is controversial at many levels. The opinion characterizes preconfirmation adequate protection under § 1326(a)(1)(C) as an “automatic” right—a self-fulfilling prophecy under the local rules—without regard to actual use, sale or lease of the collateral in the case. The valuation scheme and percentage monthly calculation described in DeSardi are subject to challenge by the debtor or the lienholder, but absent such a challenge, the local rules declare that 1.5 percent per month of the value of a car is the correct depreciation and becomes a superpriority claim in the event preconfirmation adequate protection payments are not made. This declaration results from the local rule without an opportunity for other creditors and administrative claimants to challenge the outcome and without the individualized analysis of administrative expenses and superpriority claims typical in other contexts.18 Perhaps the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas should be applauded for its micromanaging approach to the untidiness in § 1326(a)(1)(C); but it has to be said that a lot of controversial conclusions underlie the scheme described in DeSardi.

[18]

For many good reasons,19 Chapter 13 debtors and trustees should decline the option to provide adequate protection before confirmation by direct payments from the debtor. Instead, debtors and trustees should move the court under § 1326(a)(1) to funnel preconfirmation adequate protection payments through the Chapter 13 trustee.20 This will ensure proper accounting for preconfirmation payments, avoids interference with claims allowance and income deduction orders and initiates the habit of payments to the trustee from the beginning of the Chapter 13 case.

[19]

The amount of adequate protection payable to an allowed purchase money secured creditor prior to confirmation is subject to court review under § 1326(a)(3). The timing of court review is problematic given the accelerated timing of confirmation required by BAPCPA.21 There may be some incentive for a creditor with depreciating collateral to seek court review of adequate protection prior to confirmation given the odd language in new § 1326(a)(2) with respect to disposition of money held by the trustee when no plan is confirmed in a Chapter 13 case.22

[20]

Section 1326(a), as amended by BAPCPA, does not address how preconfirmation adequate protection payments are accounted for at confirmation. The general rule that adequate protection payments must be allocated to the secured portion of a claim may collide with new provisions of § 1325(a). Applying recognizable adequate protection principles, the bankruptcy court in Brown states that preconfirmation adequate protection payments do not contain any “interest component” and should be applied to the principal amount of the lienholder’s debt except with respect to an oversecured creditor.23 DeSardi instructs to deduct the § 1326(a)(1)(C) payments from “the value of the vehicle” when the value is less than the lien and to apply those payments to “interest” when the value of the vehicle is greater than the lien.24 Prior to BAPCPA, “value” of personal property equated to the allowed amount of a secured claim when the debt was undersecured and allocating adequate protection to that “value” made sense. Explored below, the hanging sentence at the end of § 1325(a) may upset this expectation with respect to many claims secured by personal property in Chapter 13 cases.25

[21]

BAPCPA added a hanging run-on sentence at the end of § 1325(a) that states that § 506 of the Code “shall not apply” to a purchase money security interest in a car when the debt was incurred within 910 days of the Chapter 13 petition and the car was acquired for the personal use of the debtor.26 This suspension of § 506 also applies to a purchase money debt incurred within one year of the petition that is secured by anything of value.

[22]

An allowed secured claim provided for by the plan under § 1325(a)(5) that meets the description in the hanging sentence at the end of § 1325(a) could be entitled to adequate protection before confirmation under § 1326(a)(1)(C). But if § 506 “shall not apply,” how will the bankruptcy court determine whether the claim holder is entitled to adequate protection? Section 506 is the only provision of the Bankruptcy Code that permits an allowed claim to become a secured claim. Traditionally, only lienholders with allowable secured claims have “interests” entitled to adequate protection. Is the “allowed claim secured by personal property” in § 1326(a)(1)(C) entitled to adequate protection even if § 506 does not apply and the value of the lienholder’s interest cannot be determined?

[23]

How will adequate protection payments be credited against a claim with respect to which § 506 does not apply? If adequate protection payments are credited against the gross amount of the creditor’s claim, the effect will be to reduce the unsecured portion of an undersecured claim. This outcome violates traditional notions of how adequate protection is determined and accounted for in bankruptcy cases.

[24]

Mentioned above,27 there is an enigmatic statement in § 1326(a)(2) that if no Chapter 13 plan is confirmed and the trustee is holding payments from the debtor, the trustee must return to the debtor “any such payments not previously paid and not yet due and owing to creditors pursuant to paragraph (3).”28 The cross-reference to “paragraph (3)” could be read to mean that absent a court order that modifies, increases or reduces a preconfirmation adequate protection payment required by § 1326(a)(1)(C), the money held by the trustee is returned to the debtor net only of any “unpaid claim allowed under section 503(b).”29 The declarations in some of the cases discussed above that adequate protection payments required by § 1326(a)(1)(C) are expenses of administration, are “administrative liens” and have “superpriority” status under § 507(b) will ignite competing rights to money held by the trustee when a Chapter 13 case fails and § 1326(a)(2) comes into play.30

[25]

Section 1326(a)(4) contains this new requirement with respect to proof of preconfirmation insurance coverage:

Not later than 60 days after the date of filing of a case under this chapter, a debtor retaining possession of personal property subject to a lease or securing a claim attributable in whole or in part to the purchase price of such property shall provide the lessor or secured creditor reasonable evidence of the maintenance of any required insurance coverage with respect to the use or ownership of such property and continue to do so for so long as the debtor retains possession of such property.31
[26]

Insurance required by contract is a traditional component of adequate protection to which lienholders are entitled in bankruptcy cases.32 BAPCPA has codified a requirement for proof of insurance in § 1326(a)(4) that is provided to the lessor or secured creditor, not to the court or trustee. The new proof of insurance requirement applies to leases of personal property and to claims attributable “in whole or in part” to the purchase price of personal property. This is in contrast to the preconfirmation adequate protection requirement in § 1326(a)(1)(C), which is measured by “the extent” to which the claim is attributable to the purchase of personal property. There is no requirement in § 1326(a)(4) that the lessor or lienholder have an allowable claim. “Required insurance coverage” presumably will be defined by contract.

[27]

The disjunctive “use or ownership” in § 1326(a)(4) suggests that a Chapter 13 debtor must provide proof of required insurance coverage for retained property even if not used by the debtor. The requirement continues “for so long as the debtor retains possession of such property”—indicating that reasonable evidence of insurance must be available throughout the Chapter 13 case.

[28]

This new Code provision will be inconsistent with many local rules and orders that require proof of insurance earlier than 60 days after the petition in Chapter 13 cases. Ironically, new § 1326(a)(4) will disadvantage lessors of personal property and lienholders in many districts by extending the time the debtor has to obtain and prove insurance.

[29]

Insurance can be a problem for debtors who are cash short always, but particularly strapped at the beginning of a Chapter 13 case. It is not unusual for debtors to be uninsured with respect to personal property. Lessors of personal property—especially in the rent-to-rent industry—often do not monitor or enforce contract requirements for insurance in the nonbankruptcy world. New § 1326(a)(4) may require Chapter 13 debtors to prove insurance that was not at issue before the petition. Debtors’ counsel will have to advise Chapter 13 debtors to get insurance required by any lease or security agreement when the debtor intends to retain the property more than 60 days after the petition.

[30]

It is not clear whether new § 1326(a)(4) is in derogation of any right to insurance (or payments) that a lessor or lienholder might assert as an adequate protection entitlement under § 361. Does 60 days to provide proof of insurance mean that Chapter 13 debtors have 60 days to obtain insurance? This would be a perverse outcome for creditors with at-risk collateral such as car lenders, especially in districts where Chapter 13 debtors before BAPCPA had shorter periods than 60 days in which to provide insurance.

[31]

New § 1326(a)(4) does not state a consequence if the Chapter 13 debtor fails to provide timely evidence of insurance. A motion for relief from the stay might be appropriate. Obliquely, there is a related consequence with respect to a future automatic stay if the Chapter 13 case is dismissed.

[32]

Somewhat simplified, under new § 362(c)(3), a Chapter 13 debtor who suffered dismissal of a prior bankruptcy case within a year is allowed an automatic stay for only 30 days upon refiling.33 The automatic stay can be extended beyond 30 days if the most recent filing is “in good faith.”34 There is a rebuttable presumption that the most recent case was not filed in good faith if a previous case was dismissed within the year after the debtor failed to “provide adequate protection as ordered by the court.”35

[33]

Similarly, under new § 362(c)(4), if two or more bankruptcy cases were pending for the debtor within the previous year but were dismissed, no automatic stay comes into effect36 in the most recent filing unless a party in interest requests a stay. When requested, the bankruptcy court can impose a stay only if the most recent case was filed in good faith.37 Once again, there is a rebuttable presumption that the most recent case was not filed in good faith if, in a previous case dismissed within the year, the debtor failed to provide adequate protection “as ordered by the court.”38

[34]

With respect to both provisions, the rebuttable presumption of a lack of good faith arises only if the debtor failed to provide adequate protection that was “ordered” by the bankruptcy court. Under § 1326(a)(1)(C), a Chapter 13 debtor must commence adequate protection payments to the holder of an allowed purchase money claim secured by personal property within 30 days of the petition without regard to entry of a court order. Similarly, the insurance requirement in § 1326(a)(4) does not result from a court order. Failure to provide adequate protection pursuant to § 1326(a)(1)(C) or § 1326(a)(4) would not trigger the rebuttable presumption in § 362(c)(3) or (4). But if a creditor (or the debtor) moves the court to modify, increase or reduce the payments required by § 1326(a)(1)(C), then a court order would be entered under § 1326(a)(3) that might support the rebuttable presumption in the event the Chapter 13 case is dismissed and the debtor refiles one or more cases within a year. This suggests another incentive for creditors holding allowed purchase money claims secured by personal property to seek court orders in Chapter 13 cases under § 1326(a)(3).39


 

1  See § 401.1 [ Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.6  Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA.

 

2  11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)(B), discussed in § 401.1 [ Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.6  Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA.

 

3  11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)(C), discussed in § 401.1 [ Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.6  Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA.

 

4  11 U.S.C. § 361 provides:

§ 361. Adequate protection
When adequate protection is required under section 362, 363, or 364 of this title of an interest of an entity in property, such adequate protection may be provided by—
(1) requiring the trustee to make a cash payment or periodic cash payments to such entity, to the extent that the stay under section 362 of this title, use, sale, or lease under section 363 of this title, or any grant of a lien under section 364 of this title results in a decrease in the value of such entity’s interest in such property;
(2) providing to such entity an additional or replacement lien to the extent that such stay, use, sale, lease, or grant results in a decrease in the value of such entity’s interest in such property; or
(3) granting such other relief, other than entitling such entity to compensation allowable under section 503(b)(1) of this title as an administrative expense, as will result in the realization by such entity of the indubitable equivalent of such entity’s interest in such property.

 

5  See §§ 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1  Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation and 449.1 [ “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation ] § 74.15  “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation after BAPCPA for further discussion of adequate protection in Chapter 13 cases.

 

6  11 U.S.C. § 361.

 

7  See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) (“maintenance of payments while the case is pending”). But see In re Perez, 339 B.R. 385, 401 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006) (“[I]t is incongruous to bless adequate protection payments to Chapter 13 residential lien holders in any amount less than the contractual amount required by the promissory note as the routine method to be adopted for adequate protection. . . . [M]aking the contractual monthly payment constitutes an indubitable equivalent under 11 U.S.C. § 36[1](3).”).

 

8  Determining the purchase money character of debt in Chapter 13 cases is addressed further in this and other contexts in §§ 50.1 [ Available in Chapter 13 Cases ] § 49.1  Available in Chapter 13 Cases, 51.1 [ Limitations on Lien Avoidance ] § 49.3  Limitations on Lien Avoidance, 401.1 [ Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.6  Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA and 451.1 [ In General: Modification Without § 506 ] § 75.1  In General: Modification Without § 506.

 

9  355 B.R. 519 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006).

 

10  355 B.R. at 524.

 

11  348 B.R. 583 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2006).

 

12  348 B.R. at 591–94. Accord In re Beaver, 337 B.R. 281, 284–85 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006) (“It is well established bankruptcy law and practice that when adequate protection is required . . . it may be provided by a variety of methods. . . . Section 361 provides that adequate protection may be provided by cash payments, replacement liens or ‘such other relief’ as would ‘result in . . . the indubitable equivalent of such entity’s interest in such property.’ . . . Unless the secured creditor receives pre-confirmation payments in an amount that is equal to the amount that the collateral is depreciating, the creditor’s interest in the property will not be adequately protected in the event that the plan is not confirmed and the payments are returned to the debtor . . . . A plan that provides for the payment of the secured claim over the life of the plan and also provides that a portion of each pre-confirmation payment will be distributed to the secured creditor in the event that the plan is not confirmed and the case is dismissed may provide adequate protection without the necessity of pre-confirmation payments to the secured creditor.”).

 

13  340 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006).

 

14  340 B.R. at 797–800.

 

15  See §§ 297.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.12  Failed Adequate Protection before BAPCPA, 402.1 [ Disposition of Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.7  Disposition of Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA, 518.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.13  Failed Adequate Protection after BAPCPA and 534.1 [ Payments Held by Chapter 13 Trustee at Conversion: § 1326(a)(2) ] § 143.3  Payments Held by Chapter 13 Trustee at Conversion: § 1326(a)(2) after BAPCPA.

 

16  340 B.R. at 803.

 

17  340 B.R. at 803.

 

18  See §§ 297.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.12  Failed Adequate Protection before BAPCPA and 518.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.13  Failed Adequate Protection after BAPCPA.

 

19  See § 401.1 [ Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.6  Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA.

 

20  See, e.g., In re Brown, 348 B.R. 583 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2006) (Pursuant to local plan form, Chapter 13 debtors provide preconfirmation adequate protection by payments to Chapter 13 trustee sufficient to protect allowed secured claim holder from depreciation; these payments are subject to lienholder’s “administrative lien.”); In re Beaver, 337 B.R. 281, 285 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006) (Direct payments to allowed secured claim holder are one method of providing adequate protection prior to confirmation, but other methods are allowed; agreement that trustee will pay 1% of value of car each month as adequate protection is acceptable. “[P]re-confirmation payments made by the chapter 13 debtor directly to the secured creditor . . . may not be the best way given the accounting problems . . . . Pre-confirmation payments made by the chapter 13 trustee to a secured creditor with an allowed claim are an acceptable method of providing adequate protection.”).

 

21  See 11 U.S.C. § 1324, discussed in § 502.1 [ Timing of Hearing on Confirmation ] § 115.2  Timing of Hearing on Confirmation after BAPCPA.

 

22  See 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2), discussed below in this section and in §§ 401.1 [ Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.6  Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA and 534.1 [ Payments Held by Chapter 13 Trustee at Conversion: § 1326(a)(2) ] § 143.3  Payments Held by Chapter 13 Trustee at Conversion: § 1326(a)(2) after BAPCPA.

 

23  348 B.R. at 594.

 

24  340 B.R. at 803.

 

25  See below in this section, and see § 451.1 [ In General: Modification Without § 506 ] § 75.1  In General: Modification Without § 506.

 

26  See § 451.1 [ In General: Modification Without § 506 ] § 75.1  In General: Modification Without § 506.

 

27  See § 402.1 [ Disposition of Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.7  Disposition of Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA.

 

28  11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2).

 

29  See § 402.1 [ Disposition of Preconfirmation Payments ] § 44.7  Disposition of Preconfirmation Payments after BAPCPA.

 

30  See §§ 297.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.12  Failed Adequate Protection before BAPCPA, 518.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.13  Failed Adequate Protection after BAPCPA and 534.1 [ Payments Held by Chapter 13 Trustee at Conversion: § 1326(a)(2) ] § 143.3  Payments Held by Chapter 13 Trustee at Conversion: § 1326(a)(2) after BAPCPA.

 

31  11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(4).

 

32  See § 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1  Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation. See, e.g., In re DeSardi, 340 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006) (Local Rules in the Southern District of Texas require Chapter 13 debtors to maintain insurance on cars and to prove insurance to any lienholder.).

 

33  See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), discussed in § 432.1 [ When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply? ] § 60.1  When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply?.

 

34  11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B), discussed in § 432.1 [ When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply? ] § 60.1  When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply?.

 

35  11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(bb), discussed further in § 432.1 [ When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply? ] § 60.1  When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply?.

 

36  See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A)(i).

 

37  11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(B).

 

38  11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(D)(i)(III), discussed in § 432.1 [ When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply? ] § 60.1  When Does § 362(c)(3) Apply?.

 

39  See also § 518.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.13  Failed Adequate Protection after BAPCPA.