§ 152.2 — Cause for Dismissal—In General
Revised: June 16, 2004
Section 1307(c) permits dismissal of a Chapter 13 case for “cause.” The 10 nonexclusive examples of cause listed in § 1307(c) include unreasonable delay by the debtor, failure to timely file a plan,1 failure to commence making timely payments under § 1326,2 denial of confirmation, material default with respect to the terms of a confirmed plan, revocation of confirmation under § 13303 and denial of confirmation of a modified plan under § 1329.4 The courts have supplemented this list with many other examples of cause. Primary among the additions is “bad faith.”5 The dismissal determination is fact-bound—for almost every reported decision finding a particular fact pattern sufficient to justify dismissal, there is a reported decision on similar facts refusing dismissal.6
One of the included grounds for conversion or dismissal of a Chapter 13 case in § 1307(c)(2)—that the debtor has failed to pay any fee or charge required under 28 U.S.C. Chapter 123—is specifically addressed in Bankruptcy Rule 1017(b). This Rule provides that “[i]f any installment of the filing fee has not been paid, the court may, after a hearing on notice to the debtor and the trustee, dismiss the case.”7 This oddly focused little rule is probably a vestige of former practice. Under pre-Code law, there was controversy whether the failure of a Chapter XIII debtor to pay the filing fee was a ground for dismissal and, if so, whether that dismissal was with prejudice to discharge in a subsequent bankruptcy case.8 Bankruptcy Rule 1017(b) clarifies that dismissal is the appropriate remedy for failure to pay a filing fee. It has been held that failure to pay the filing fee in installments prior to confirmation is cause for dismissal.9 Filing fees are sometimes paid through the plan after confirmation.10
Bankruptcy Rule 1017(b) says nothing about conversion as a remedy for failure to pay a filing fee, notwithstanding that conversion might be the option in the best interests of creditors and the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(2). Also, Bankruptcy Rule 1017(b) is not clear how dismissal for failure to pay a filing fee will come before the bankruptcy court. Presumably, some party in interest would make a motion to dismiss—the trustee or the U.S. trustee being the most likely candidates.
Similarly, Bankruptcy Rule 1017(c) specifically addresses dismissal of a Chapter 13 case under § 1307(c)(9) on the motion of the U.S. trustee when the debtor fails to timely file the list of creditors, schedules and statement of financial affairs. As mentioned above,11 Rule 1017(c) is unfortunately worded to limit notice of the hearing on dismissal when the debtor has failed to file necessary documents. It is odd that the Rules drafters have singled out this particular ground for dismissal of a Chapter 13 case for a special limitation on notice. The failure to file necessary documents is a common characteristic of an abusive or serial filing,12 and notice of dismissal on this ground is particularly important to creditors that wish to argue for conversion or to impose conditions on dismissal of the case.13
1 See §§ 38.2 [ Time for Filing Schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs, Plan and Other Documents ] § 37.4 Time for Filing Schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs, Plan and Other Documents and 55.1 [ Debtor Must File a Plan ] § 51.2 Debtor Must File a Plan.
2 See discussion beginning at § 44.1 First Test of Debtor’s Good Intentions.
3 See § 224.1 [ Revocation of Confirmation ] § 117.3 Revocation of Confirmation.
5 See § 24.1 Court-Imposed Restrictions on Eligibility to Refile, § 139.2 BAPCPA: More Grounds; Changed Consequences, § 152.3 Cause for Dismissal Added or Changed by BAPCPA, § 152.4 Cause for Dismissal, Including Bad-Faith, Multiple and Abusive Filings and § 153.3 Court-Imposed Conditions and Restrictions on Dismissal.
6 See § 335.1 [ Cause Not Found ] § 152.5 Cause Not Found.
7 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1017(b)(1).
8 See, e.g., In re Seiden, 174 F.2d 586 (2d Cir. 1949).
9 In re Ennis, 178 B.R. 189, 191–92 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1995) (“Debtor was permitted to pay the filing fee in installments. Only part of the filing fee has been paid and $70.00 remains unpaid. In addition, debtors have not paid to the Clerk’s Office a previously-billed $25.00 charge for a returned check. . . . The filing fee must accompany the petition at the commencement of the case unless payment in installments is permitted, in which case all installments must be paid within 120 days after filing of the petition. . . . There is no provision for waiver of the filing fee. . . . The plan cannot be confirmed because it violates 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2), which requires that all fees be paid before confirmation. Debtors must pay the filing fee or the case must be dismissed. . . . Debtors have refused to pay the filing fee so there is no recourse except to dismiss the case.”).
11 See § 332.1 [ Procedure, Timing and Form ] § 152.1 Procedure, Timing and Form. See also § 311.2 [ Conversion on Request of Creditor or Trustee ] § 141.2 Conversion on Request of Creditor or Trustee.
Nemeth v. Cohen (In re Nemeth), 709 F. App’x 507 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018) (unpublished) (Reinhardt, Trott, Hurwitz) (Bankruptcy court appropriately dismissed Chapter 13 case under § 1307(c)(4) when debtor failed to make plan payments and failed to pay postpetition mortgage payments.).
Echeverry v. Weiner (In re Echeverry), 720 F. App'x 598 (11th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018) (unpublished) (Marcus, Wilson, Jordan) (Debtor’s failure to provide record or transcript on appeal requires court of appeals to affirm holding that dismissal under § 1307(c) was appropriate when debtor failed to make payments, failed to attend confirmation hearing, failed to file tax returns and other required documents and failed to file proof of prepetition briefing.).
Jodway v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Jodway), 719 F. App'x 502 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2018) (Moore, Thapar, Larsen) (Dismissal was appropriate based on material default under confirmed plan when plan required debtors to surrender property and to make deficiency payments to lienholder, but debtors failed to do either. Debtors’ motion to modify to reduce deficiency payments was futile response to dismissal when modification would not resolve failure to surrender property.), aff'g No. 17-cv-10437, 2017 WL 2351972 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2017) (Drain) (Dismissal based on failure to surrender property and failure to pay consistent with confirmed plan cannot be challenged with arguments about mortgagee’s behavior that are barred by res judicata effect of other litigation.).
Gilbert v. Danielson (In re Gilbert), No. 16-55253, 2016 WL 7384095 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016) (unpublished) (Wallace, Leavy, Fisher) (Dismissal was appropriate when debtor failed to commence making payments required by § 1326(a)(1).).
Zapata v. United States Tr. (In re Zapata), No. 12-60081, 2016 WL 4123864 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2016) (unpublished) (Schroeder, Canby, Callahan) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c) included that the debtor failed to appear at the § 341 meeting of creditors and the debtor failed to commence making timely payments under § 1326(a)(1).), aff'g No. CC-11-1184-PaKiNo, 2012 WL 4466283 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2012) (unpublished) (Pappas, Kirscher, Novack) (Cause for dismissal that debtors neither attended meeting of creditors as required by § 343 nor commenced payments within 30 days as required by § 1326(a)(1).).
In re Downs, 614 F. App'x 855 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2015) (Easterbrook, Kanne, Sykes) (Dismissal of Chapter 13 case is affirmed for procedural default on appeal by pro se debtor.).
Paulson v. Wein (In re Paulson), No. 12-3720, 2013 WL 3970104 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013) (unpublished) (Smith, Bowman, Shepherd) (Cause for dismissal that debtor repeatedly filed "inadequate plans of reorganization" that prejudiced creditors.).
Mallory v. Heitkamp (In re Mallory), No. 11-20192, 2012 WL 1292776 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (unpublished) (Garza, Southwick, Haynes) (Multiple missed payments were adequate cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(4).), aff'g 444 B.R. 553 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2011) (Miller) (Cause for dismissal with prejudice included unreasonable delay—three years between filing and confirmation—and $19,000 delinquency in payments to trustee. Debtor also did not provide trustee with information regarding domestic support obligation.).
Castaldo v. Bank of N.Y. (In re Castaldo), No. 07-1840-bk, 2009 WL 754793 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2009) (unpublished) (Sack, Parker, Cote) (Cause for dismissal that debtor failed to comply with bankruptcy court order to file amended plan.).
In re Dempsey, No. 07-1042, 2007 WL 2478674 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2007) (unpublished) (Failure to confirm eight amended plans over two-year period is unreasonable delay prejudicial to creditors under § 1307(c)(1).).
Barbel v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In re Barbel), Nos. 04-4515, 04-4516, 04-4517, 2006 WL 1518842 (3d Cir. June 2, 2006) (unpublished) (Cause for dismissal that debtor failed to make payments required by an interim plan, debtor delayed Chapter 13 case by claiming to own property and by filing numerous pro se motions in violation of court orders, and five amended plans were rejected as unconfirmable.).
Neuton v. City Nat'l Bank (In re Neuton), Nos. 03-56266, 01-05163-WMB, 2005 WL 1793395 (9th Cir. July 27, 2005) (unpublished) (Failure to obtain confirmation within five years of filing case is cause for dismissal under § 1307(c).).
Seymour v. Greer (In re Seymour), No. EC-17-1075-KuFS, 2017 WL 5196703 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2017) (unpublished) (Kurtz, Faris, Spraker) (Cause for dismissal of latest Chapter 13 case by serial filer was failure to make correct plan payments under § 1307(c)(4).).
Benoit v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Benoit), 564 B.R. 799 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Mar. 16, 2017) (Deasy, Tester, Finkle) (Cause for dismissal included that debtor failed to comply with deadlines to bring adversary proceeding against Deutsche Bank, failed to bring foreclosure action on a mortgage on a neighboring property and was otherwise financially unable to deal with large defaulted mortgage.).
Velasquez v. Burchard (In re Velasquez), No. 3:14-BK-30344, 2016 WL 4259952 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished) (Taylor, Jury, Kirscher) (Evidence of unreasonable delay that was prejudicial to creditors for purposes of dismissal under § 1307(c)(1) included that case had been pending for 14 months, no confirmable plan was in sight, the debtor failed to complete the § 341(a) meeting process and stopped making payments to the trustee.).
Burris v. Curry (In re Burris), No. CC-14-1552-TaKuD, 2015 WL 5922036 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2015) (unpublished) (Taylor, Kurtz, Dunn) (Cause for dismissal included eight months in which debtor made no progress toward confirmation and failed to address mortgage arrears notwithstanding warning from court.).
In re Henry, 534 B.R. 721, 723 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Aug. 3, 2015) (Delk, Harrison, Lloyd) (Dismissal appropriate when pro se debtor was given 14 days to file amended plan and no amended plan was received by the bankruptcy court. Debtor claimed that amended plan was mailed on the last date for filing consistent with court orders, but the bankruptcy court never received the plan. "[B]oth PACER and the ability to e-file are available in the Southern District of Ohio Bankruptcy Court for limited use by non-attorney users. . . . The Debtor-Appellant knew that documents needed to be filed. If there was any doubt that the documents would arrive through the mail, the debtor should have made arrangements to present the documents physically to the Court.").
Wildhaber v. Burchard (In re Wildhaber), No. NC-14-1352-PaJuKl, 2015 WL 4550128 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 28, 2015) (unpublished) (Pappas, Jury, Klein) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(3) that pro se debtor intentionally did not file plan within 14 days allowed by Bankruptcy Rule 3015(b); though "perhaps misinformed," debtor's decision not to file a plan was not reviewable without a transcript.).
Villalon v. Burchard (In re Villalon), No. NC-14-1414-KiTaD, 2015 WL 3377854 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 22, 2015) (unpublished) (Kirscher, Taylor, Dunn) (Cause for dismissal that seven proposed plans all were not feasible and debtor failed to make payments required by § 1326(a)(1)(A).).
Phillips v. Leavitt (In re Phillips), No. NV-14-1359-JuKuD, 2015 WL 2180321 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 8, 2015) (unpublished) (Jury, Dunn, Kurtz) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(5), (c)(1) and (c)(3) included denial of confirmation of seven plans, more than two years without confirming a plan and failure to file an eighth plan in 10 weeks after denial of confirmation of plan number seven.).
Carmona v. Cohen (In re Carmona), No. CC-14-1380-TaPaKi, 2015 WL 1791156 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) (unpublished) (Taylor, Pappas, Kirscher) (In 60th month of plan, case dismissed for material default under § 1307(c)(6): confirmed plan required that wholly unsecured junior lien be paid as either a secured or an unsecured claim and debtor did neither.).
Witkowski v. Boyajian (In re Witkowski), 523 B.R. 300, 306-07 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 13, 2014) (Tester, Godoy, Harwood) ("[T]he Debtor conceded that she never commenced making payments pursuant to the Plan as required by § 1326(a)(1) . . . she offered no satisfactory excuse for her omission. . . . [T]he Debtor never requested an extension of time for the commencement of Plan payments. . . . [T]he Debtor's failure to satisfy the requirements of § 1326(a)(1), standing alone, is a sufficient ground for dismissal of her chapter 13 case. When we consider the Debtor's failure to comply with § 1326(a) together with her undisputed and unexcused failure to attend the § 341 meeting, there is more than ample support for the Dismissal Order.").
Oliver v. United States Trustee (In re Oliver), No. CC-11-1482-PaKiRn, 2012 WL 5232201, at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012) (unpublished) (Pappas, Kirscher, Renn) (Dismissal is appropriate when debtor failed to attend fourth scheduling of § 341 meeting. "A bankruptcy court may dismiss a petition for the unexcused failure by the debtor to attend the § 341(a) meeting of creditors.").
Paulson v. Wein (In re Paulson), 477 B.R. 740 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Sept. 20, 2012) (Schermer, Federman, Saladino) (Cause for dismissal included five unconfirmable plans and that debtor refused to properly treat two secured creditors with prepetition judgments. Convening a "Peoples Seventh Amendment Jury" was inappropriate attempt to defeat the validity of state court judgments outside of the state or federal judicial systems.).
Schnall v. Fitzgerald (In re Schnall), No. WW-11-1378-KiJuH, 2012 WL 1888144 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 24, 2012) (unpublished) (Kirscher, Jury, Hollowell) (Cause for dismissal that debtor proposes to keep residence without paying mortgages and did not have sufficient income to cure default and maintain payments; even if debtor could avoid mortgage liens, resulting equity would exceed debtor's ability to pay unsecured creditors. Bankruptcy court denied confirmation and then dismissed based on the absence of any confirmation in prospect.).
Dockery v. Busuego (In re Christensen), No. CC-11-1375-MkLaPa, 2012 WL 603708 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2012) (unpublished) (Markell, Lafferty, Pappas) (Cause for dismissal that debtor was deceased and only remaining asset—an adversary proceeding to recover a fraudulent conveyance—was without merit.).
Townley v. Fitzgerald (In re Townley), No. WW-10-1397-JuWaPa, 2011 WL 6934444 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2011) (unpublished) (Jury, Wallace, Pappas) (Appeal of dismissal without stay was moot; dismissal was justified when debtors could not submit confirmable plan and lacked sufficient income to pay mortgage, and proposed plan would impermissibly modify mortgage.).
Ellsworth v. Lifescape Med. Assocs., P.C. (In re Ellsworth), 455 B.R. 904, 915-16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 29, 2011) (Markell, Mann, Dunn) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(1) that debtors delayed bankruptcy case for three years by untrustworthy financial reporting, constantly changing income and expense information and "a fuzzy and constantly-moving target" that foiled efforts by trustee and principal creditor to police case; cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(3) that debtors filed new plan seven months after deadline set by court. "A debtor's unjustified failure to expeditiously accomplish any task required either to propose or to confirm a chapter 13 plan may constitute cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(1). . . . The court warned the Ellsworths at the April 14, 2009 status conference (more than two years into their bankruptcy case) that the court doubted the accuracy and transparency of their financial information and that their chapter 13 case would be dismissed unless the Ellsworths expeditiously resolved the court's doubts. . . . Paragraph (3) of § 1307(c) applies not only to the first plan filed, but also to any subsequent plan or modification required by the court. . . . Here, the Ellsworths failed to file timely a plan as required by the bankruptcy court's January 2009 Order. . . . [T]he Ellsworths were to file a new plan within thirty days. . . . [T]hey did not file a new plan until September 2009, seven months after the court's deadline.").
Randle v. Enmark (In re Randle), No. EC-07-1349-DCMo, 2008 WL 8448825, at *4 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 30, 2008) (unpublished) (Dunn, Carroll, Montali) (Citing § 105(a) and notwithstanding § 1307(c)(9), it was cause for dismissal that debtors failed to file proper list of creditors after multiple warnings that failure to cure deficiency would result in dismissal. "Although § 1307(c)(9) speaks in terms of a dismissal on this basis only upon motion by the U.S. Trustee, we previously have held that in the absence of a motion by the U.S. Trustee, § 105(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to comply with § 521(1). Tennant v. Rojas (In re Tennant), 318 B.R. 860, 869-70 (9th Cir. BAP 2004).").
Tran v. Harrah's Operating Co. (In re Tran), No. EC-05-1229-ABPa, 2006 WL 6811015 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) (unpublished) (Albert, Brandt, Pappas) (Cause for dismissal that debtor failed to prove feasibility or good faith notwithstanding multiple continuances and modified plans. Thirteen months was unreasonable delay for § 1307(c)(1) purposes given that debtor proposed multiple modified plans and attempted confirmation at several hearings.), aff'd, 279 Fed. Appx. 567 (9th Cir. May 23, 2008) (Fletcher, Rymer, Duffy).).
Toland v. Spartan Mortgage Servs. (In re Toland), No. EC-05-1377-PaAB, 2006 WL 6811030 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 15, 2006) (unpublished) (Pappas, Albert, Brandt) (Cause for dismissal included that debtor spent nonexempt proceeds from sale of home on living expenses without court approval and in violation of court orders and debtor failed to confirm a plan or to demonstrate any likelihood of being able to confirm a plan.).
Nelson v. Meyer (In re Nelson), 343 B.R. 671, 675-76 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 15, 2006) (When Chapter 13 case is dismissed under § 1307(c)(5) based on the denial of confirmation of a plan, debtor must be afforded opportunity to file modified plan; once cause for dismissal is determined, the bankruptcy court must assess whether conversion or dismissal is in best interests of creditors and estate. "The statutory 'cause' that applies to denial of plan confirmation is § 1307(c)(5): 'denial of confirmation of a plan under section 1325 of this title and denial of a request made for additional time for filing another plan or a modification of a plan.' . . . The conjunction 'and' in § 1307(c)(5) means that there are two essential elements that each must be satisfied in order to constitute 'cause' to convert or dismiss a case following the denial of confirmation of a plan: (1) denial of confirmation; and (2) denial of a request for time to file a new or a modified plan. . . . Although the debtor did not request additional time for filing another plan or modifying the plan, the court did not afford her an opportunity to make such a request after it denied plan confirmation. . . . [T]he second element of § 1307(c)(5) requires, at a minimum, that the court must afford a debtor an opportunity to propose a new or modified plan following the denial of plan confirmation. . . . Because the court did not offer the debtor such an opportunity, the second element of § 1307(c)(5) was not satisfied. It follows that there was no 'cause' to dismiss or convert the chapter 13 case under that authority."), on remand, No. 05-10660, 2006 WL 2091899 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. July 26, 2006).).
Ruesch v. Household Auto. Fin. Corp. (In re Ruesch), 337 B.R. 203 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Dec. 5, 2005) (Kressel, Federman, Venters) (Panel cannot find abuse of discretion in dismissal when debtor failed to provide adequate record on appeal from dismissal order.).
Faria v. Hildebrand, No. 3:17-cv-01383, 2018 WL 3157072 (M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2018) (Crenshaw), aff'd, No. 18-5780, 2019 WL 366938 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (Norris, Sutton, Cook) (Bankruptcy court appropriately denied confirmation and dismissed Chapter 13 case when plan did not provide for mortgage holder, debtor failed to commence payments required by § 1326 and debtor failed or refused to answer questions about mortgage payments.).
Howard v. Barkley, No. 3:18-CV-163-SA, 2019 WL 1440290 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2019) (Aycock) (Failure to continue making payments required by confirmed plan is cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(4).).
In re Reddy, No. 3:17-cv-1067 (VAB), 2019 WL 1242896 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2019) (Bolden) (Bankruptcy court appropriately dismissed Chapter 13 case for unreasonable delay that was prejudicial to creditors when schedules showed the debtor had negative income and could not fund a plan to deal with large long-disputed mortgage.).
Bote v. Derham-Burk, No. 3:18-cv-02246-WHO, 2018 WL 5454150 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) (Orrick) (Dismissal for cause was appropriate when Chapter 13 debtor waited four and a half years to object to plan-busting priority claim that could not be paid in 60 months. Debtor’s objection to the large priority claim straddled hearing on trustee’s motion to dismiss and debtor failed to timely object to dismissal motion.).
Stearns v. Pratola (In re Pratola), 589 B.R. 779, 786–93 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018) (Dow) (Because large student loan debt is noncontingent and liquidated, debtor is ineligible for Chapter 13 under § 109(e) and ineligibility is cause for conversion or dismissal under § 1307(c). Bankruptcy court abused discretion to find otherwise. “No party has questioned the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Debtor’s educational debt is noncontingent. Therefore, the parties do not dispute that all $591,223 of the unsecured debt listed . . . is noncontingent and liquidated, including Debtor’s educational debt subject to an IBR plan. . . . Section 109(e)’s text unambiguously prevents Debtor . . . from proceeding under Chapter 13. . . . The Court is not unsympathetic to the policy concerns . . . regarding individuals with large amounts of educational debt, but the power to create such an exception to § 109(e) lies with Congress rather than the courts. . . . Debtor exceeds the statutory debt limit and so is ineligible to proceed as a Chapter 13; the nature of his debt is irrelevant. . . . [D]ebtor’s ineligibility constitutes cause for dismissal or conversion under § 1307(c). Furthermore, the discretion that the Bankruptcy Court may exercise pursuant to § 1307(c) is constrained by the text of § 109(e)’s eligibility requirements. . . . [T]he Bankruptcy Court does not have discretion to ignore Debtor’s ineligibility for relief under § 109(e)’s plain terms and allow him to proceed with his Chapter 13 case based on a finding that doing so is in the best interests of the estate and creditors.”).
Quinn v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 5:17-cv-137, 2018 WL 3448213 (D. Vt. July 16, 2018) (Crawford) (Cause to dismiss under §§ 105 and 1307(c) included material default by debtor under plan by failing to amend by deadline fixed by court and failure to make payments required by confirmed plan. Debtor’s dissatisfaction with rulings by the bankruptcy court was not a ground for recusal of bankruptcy judge or for second-guessing cause for dismissal.).
Zalloum v. Weatherford (In re Zalloum), No. 6:17-cv-561-Orl-40, 2018 WL 1039998 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2018) (Byron) (Cause for dismissal that debtor failed to file amended plan by deadline set by bankruptcy court; no further hearing was required and deadline set by bankruptcy court put debtor on adequate notice of possibility of dismissal.), on remand, No. 6:13-bk-04030-KSJ, 2017 WL 1012971 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017) (Jennemann) (On remand, bankruptcy court denies reconsideration of order dismissing case after debtor repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to appear at hearings.), remanded from No. 6:15-cv-404-Orl-40, 2016 WL 7494481 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016) (Byron) (Cause for dismissal that debtor failed to comply with a court order requiring the debtor to file a Chapter 13 plan.).
Freidzon v. Gorman, No. 1:16-CV-627(LMB/JFA), 2016 WL 9211754 (E.D. Va. July 29, 2017) (Brinkema) (Bankruptcy court appropriately granted voluntary dismissal and denied motion to vacate that dismissal when it appeared that Chapter 13 case was a purely two-party dispute more appropriately resolved in state court.), aff’d,D 687 F. App’x 242 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2017) (unpublished) (King, Diaz, Thacker).).
Spencer v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (In re Spencer), 246 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 30, 2017) (Conley) (Debtor's failure to file amended plan or an explanation for missing tax returns by date in bankruptcy court order was unreasonable delay and a failure to file documents for purposes of dismissal under § 1307(c).).
Dailey v. Thomas, No. ELH-16-3065, 2017 WL 1093277 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2017) (Hollander) (Cause for dismissal included failure to make at least three payments required by proposed plan and failure to confirm a plan notwithstanding four amended plans.).
Collins v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Collins), Nos. 14-00453 SOM/BMK, 14-00488 SOM/BMK, 2015 WL 477324 (D. Haw. Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished) (Mollway) (Unreasonable delay for purposes of dismissal under § 1307(c) included denial of confirmation of four proposed plans premised on the "impossible" reduction of secured claims to zero.).
Taal v. St. Mary's Bank, No. 13-cv-194-PB, 2014 WL 130980 (D.N.H. Jan. 10, 2014) (unpublished) (Barbadoro) (Failure to file amended plan is cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(3).).
Bond v. Kerns, No. CV-12-00875-TUC-RCC, 2013 WL 7046375 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) (Collins) (Refusal to amend plan to account for going-concern value of restaurant business as ordered by bankruptcy court is cause for dismissal.).
Miller v. Marshall, No. 12 C 02566, 2013 WL 5213366 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2013) (Tharp) (Failure to continue making payments under proposed plan pursuant to § 1326 is cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(4).), aff'd, No. 13-3359, 2014 WL 4674804 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2014) (unpublished) (Cudahy, Posner, Kanne).).
Bauman v. Billingslea (In re Bauman), No. 12cv2476-IEG (RBB), 2013 WL 4679987, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013) (Gonzalez) (When denial of confirmation is ground for dismissal, § 1307(c)(5) "'requires, at a minimum, that the court must afford a debtor an opportunity to propose a new or modified plan[.]'").
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Stewart, No. 10-3589, 2011 WL 1899820, at *10 (E.D. La. May 16, 2011) (McNamara) (Bankruptcy court erred in denying trustee's unopposed motion to dismiss case for lack of feasibility when Countrywide filed timely postconfirmation proof of claim that stated larger arrearage amount than provided for through plan; on remand, bankruptcy court should determine if late-filed proof of claim should be allowed. If debtor "had truthfully filled out his bankruptcy schedules or confected a plan including the full pre-petition arrearage, then the Chapter 13 Trustee should have objected to confirmation or the bankruptcy court on its own authority could have then questioned confirmation. The bankruptcy court implicitly relied on Debtor's representations and confirmed the Plan.").
Elliott v. Reding (In re Elliott), No. 3:10-CV-1041-WKW, 2011 WL 744800 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 25, 2011) (Watkins) (Cause for dismissal that, after six continuances, debtor was three years in default of plan payments.).
Marks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. C 10-01148 WHA, 2010 WL 3219299 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010) (Alsup) (Res judicata barred debtor from re-litigating issues with Ocwen that had been previously decided by district court decision. Appeal was also untimely.).
In re Brown, No. 08 C 3230, 2010 WL 3189992 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010) (Leinenweber) (Appeal of dismissal was bad-faith delaying tactic in frivolous case. Dispute that debtor had with mortgage creditor about payment credits belonged in state court foreclosure proceeding.).
In re Maali, 452 B.R. 325 (D. Mass. Mar. 1, 2010) (Stearns) (Cause for dismissal that pro se debtor failed to attend 341 meeting without sufficient excuse and failed to timely commence plan payments.).
In re Pierson, No. 08-1015, 2009 WL 1424472 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2009) (Jones) (Dismissal of case for payment default was not error; pro se debtor's conspiracy attacks on bankruptcy court and trustee were unfounded.).
Emiabata v. Langehennig (In re Emiabata), No. A-08-CA-0013 LY, 2008 WL 4533995 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2008) (Yeakel) (Failure to comply with timely payment order justifies dismissal for unreasonable delay that is prejudicial to creditors.).
In re Watkins, Nos. 06-CV-1341 (DGT), 06-CV-597 (DGT), 2008 WL 708413 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2008) (unpublished) (Trager) (Cause for dismissal that no confirmable plan was presented.).
Buchanan v. Buchanan (In re Buchanan), Nos. 04-12419 (JKF), 07-034-SLR, 2007 WL 2828019 (D. Del. Sept. 26, 2007) (Dismissal appropriate to allow state family court to address distribution of marital property when parties had been in marital dissolution litigation for two years and Chapter 13 plan had not been confirmed.).
Halkas v. Grigsby (In re Halkas), No. 2006-2744, 2007 WL 187798 (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2007) (unpublished) (Chapter 13 trustee's motion to dismiss for failure to pay was resolved by order to sell debtor's home, with net proceeds distributed to creditors; debtor's appeal became moot when no stay existed, allowing trustee's distribution.).
Harris v. Albany County Office, Nos. 1:05-CV-0525 (GLS), 1:05-CV-0526 (GLS), 2006 WL 1007880 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2006) (unpublished) (Cause for dismissal that confirmable plan depends on avoidance of tax foreclosures as fraudulent conveyances and statute of limitations in § 548(d)(1) has run with respect to the sales; even if foreclosure sales could be undone, proceeds would be insufficient to satisfy enough debts to allow a confirmable plan.).
Bethune v. Reiber, No. 04-CV-6430 CJS, 2006 WL 1007621 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2006) (unpublished) (Cause for dismissal that incarcerated debtor failed to make payments for eight months before and after confirmation of a plan; explanation that third parties mismanaged the debtor's real properties and failed to remit rents can't save the case.).
In re Harris, Nos. 1:05-CV-186, 1:05-CV-216, 2006 WL 572001 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2006) (unpublished) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(6) that debtor stopped making plan payments.).
Davis v. Hyman, No. 3:05CV519, 2006 WL 568620 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2006) (unpublished) (Dismissal for cause when debtor was in default of plan payments and bankruptcy court had given debtor two weeks to bring case current. Under § 1307(c)(6), material default by debtor under confirmed plan is cause for dismissal.).
In re Delone, Nos. 05-13430, 05-05707-JF, 05-06345-JF, 2006 WL 358650 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2006) (unpublished) (Dismissal appropriate when debtor was in default, and plan would exceed five years and would impermissibly modify mortgage.).
In re Ameen, No. 05-1743RBK, 2005 WL 1683654 (D.N.J. July 19, 2005) (unpublished) (Failure to present confirmable plan and delay in amending plan are causes for dismissal.).
In re Wise, No. 18-00753, 2019 WL 1282786 (Bankr. D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2019) (Teel) (Debtor states no ground for relief from order of dismissal. Debtor failed to attend meeting of creditors, failed to oppose motion to dismiss and has offered no explanation or excuse for either omission.).
In re Mosley, No. 18-30771, 2018 WL 5304731 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2018) (Grandy) (Citing district court reversal in Stearns v. Pratola (In re Pratola), 589 B.R. 779 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018) (Dow), debtor with student loans in excess of eligibility limits in § 109(e) is not eligible for Chapter 13 and case must be dismissed.).
In re Malek, No. 17-52856 SLJ, 2018 WL 4354035 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (Johnson) (Unreasonable delay prejudicial to creditors for purposes of dismissal under § 1307(c) included seven months without progress toward confirmation, debtor failed to correct deficiencies in plan pointed out by trustee, proposed plan has goal of delay, not paying creditors, and debtor’s challenge to dismissal on procedural grounds rather than addressing problems with the plan fails to justify continuation of the case.).
In re Allen, No. 18-00366, 2018 WL 3013202 (Bankr. D.D.C. June 14, 2018) (unpublished) (Teel) (Motion to reconsider dismissal of Chapter 13 case is denied when current and two prior Chapter 13 cases were dismissed for failure to file mailing matrix after show-cause orders warned of consequences.).
In re Petty, No. 18-40258, 2018 WL 1956187 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2018) (Rhoades) (Rejecting In re Pratola, 578 B.R. 414 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2017) (Baer), and agreeing with In re Bailey-Pfeiffer, No. 1-17-13506-bhl, 2018 WL 1896307 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. Mar. 23, 2018) (Ludwig), and In re Mendenhall, No. 17-40592-JDP, 2017 WL 4684999 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 17, 2017) (Pappas), student loans are noncontingent, liquidated unsecured debts for eligibility purposes under § 109(e) that must be counted; debtors are rendered ineligible and trustee’s motion to convert or dismiss based on ineligibility is granted.).
In re Bailey-Pfeiffer, No. 1-17-13506-bhl, 2018 WL 1896307, at *4 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. Mar. 23, 2018) (Ludwig) (Rejecting In re Pratola, 578 B.R. 414 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2017) (Baer), that student loan debt exceeds eligibility limitation in § 109(e) requires denial of confirmation on objection by trustee. Plan does not comply with applicable provisions of Bankruptcy Code when debt limitations are exceeded under § 109(e). Court must convert or dismiss a Chapter 13 case when student loan debt exceeds eligibility limitation in § 109(e). That eligibility limitation in § 109(e) is not jurisdictional does not resolve question whether bankruptcy court must allow Chapter 13 case to go forward when student loan debt exceeds limitation in § 109(e). Court, sua sponte, requires conversion or dismissal. “This court declines to follow [In re Pratola]. The soundest policy arguments do not trump the statutory language, and, while the decision to dismiss or convert a case under section 1307 is discretionary, the court is bound to apply its discretion consistent with the plain terms of the Code. Those plain terms preclude the court from allowing a person who is ineligible to be a chapter 13 debtor from continuing in chapter 13.”).
In re Fuller, 581 B.R. 236 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2018) (Gregg) (Court declines to upset dismissal when schedules showed debtor exceeded debt limits, debtor failed to make payments for more than four months, debtor lacked regular income and Chapter 13 case was unreasonably delaying creditors. Amended schedules filed after order of dismissal were not “newly discovered evidence” for purposes of Rule 59 relief from dismissal order.).
In re Green, No. 16-04137-TOM-13, 2017 WL 6498051 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Dec. 18, 2017) (Mitchell) (Case dismissed for cause with 180-day bar to refiling under § 109(g) based on postpetition default in payments. Repudiation of postpetition agreement reached in open court that favored debtor with opportunity to cure postpetition mortgage defaults in reduced amounts influenced decision to dismiss case for cause.).
DeHart v. Bridgeforth (In re Bridgeforth), 571 B.R. 669 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2017) (Thomas) (Nine unconfirmed plans over three years caused an unreasonable delay that justifies dismissal, but pro se debtor is granted 30 additional days to confirm a plan that pays $20,649 to unsecured creditors based on court’s recalculation of disposable income.).
In re Hanley, 575 B.R. 207 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2017) (Grossman) (Cause for dismissal that debtors were in material default of direct payment of mortgage at end of 60-month period, loan modification was attempted but not completed and plan modification to cure postconfirmation defaults over objection of mortgagee was not possible because of 60-month limit in § 1329(c).).
In re Kirk, No. 3:16-bk-4073-JAF, 2017 WL 1533387 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2017) (Funk) (Cause for dismissal included failure to fix inaccurate schedules, failure to make adequate protection payments and failure to insure real property.).
In re Addams, 564 B.R. 458, 466
In re Pope, No. 16-12318-RGM, 2016 WL 4035626 (Bankr. E.D. Va. July 22, 2016) (Mayer) (Dismissal of second case within a year is appropriate when both cases were disabled by debtor’s failure to perform duties and no explanation was offered by debtor for failure to attend meetings of creditors and file necessary documents. Debtor can always file a third case if purpose would be served.).
In re Monteleone, 553 B.R. 288 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. July 19, 2016) (Deller) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c) included that no plan payments had been made, that the plan proposed to obtain a reverse mortgage with respect to property that was sold at foreclosure after stay relief was granted and that only defense to dismissal offered by the debtor was a challenge to a completed state court foreclosure.).
In re Hester, No. 16-80113-TRC, 2016 WL 3573969 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. June 23, 2016) (Cornish) (After multiple continuances, pro se debtor’s case is dismissed for failure to file required documents, lack of income and failure to begin payments to the trustee.).
In re Jurgens, No. 15-605592-13, 2015 WL 6163511 (Bankr. D. Mont. Oct. 20, 2015) (Kirscher) (Ineligibility under § 109(e) is “cause” to dismiss or convert under § 1307(c). Unemployed debtor given 16 days to find employment that would provide regular income to fund a plan.).
In re Formaneck, 534 B.R. 29, 33-35 (Bankr. D. Colo. July 13, 2015) (Romero) (Failure to make direct payments to mortgagee for 30 postconfirmation months is material default under plan that precludes discharge and provides cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(6); trustee has standing to seek dismissal with or without participation by mortgagee. Dismissal, not conversion, is appropriate under § 1307(c)(6) because conversion would reward debtors' default by allowing a discharge in the Chapter 7 case. "Debtors' failure to make direct payments to Wells Fargo for over thirty months, which is contrary to the terms of the Confirmed Plan, establishes a material default . . . . [P]ayments required to be made directly to creditors under a confirmed chapter 13 plan are 'payments under the plan,' as that term is used in § 1328(a). . . . Debtors cannot obtain a discharge of their debts in Chapter 13, and rewarding the Debtors with a discharge in Chapter 7 for their failure to comply with the Confirmed Plan and the Bankruptcy Code is inappropriate.").
In re Alegria, No. 08-41769, 2015 WL 3400419 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. May 26, 2015) (Coleman) (Debtor's failure to force sale or refinancing of former marital home by ex-husband constituted delay prejudicial to creditors and warranted dismissal of otherwise completed case when decline in property value since confirmation meant little or no return to creditors. Debtor's voluntary conveyance of interest in former marital residence to ex-husband for no consideration combined with misrepresentations regarding status of property and prospects for sale or refinancing constituted bad faith, an additional ground for dismissal.).
In re Miller, No. 13-76000-MHM, 2015 WL 1743277, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2015) (Murphy) (Dismissal for cause based on two months of missed plan payments not reconsidered when debtor failed to seek payment suspension prior to dismissal. "The circumstances in this case do not justify reconsideration of the dismissal. While Debtor may lose his vehicle and substantial equity in the Property, similar circumstances exist in many dismissed cases. And although Debtor experienced a decline in income, Debtor had other remedies available to prevent his case from being dismissed. . . . Debtor could have filed a motion to suspend payments for cause to prevent his case from being dismissed, but he did not. . . . Debtor's unfortunate decline in income is not an unusual circumstance, and the resulting dismissal is not an 'extreme' or 'unexpected' result that might justify reconsideration in the face of an objecting prejudiced creditor.").
In re Baril, No. 09-20112, 2015 WL 1636442 (Bankr. D. Me. Apr. 10, 2015) (Cary) (Cause for dismissal that debtor is $7,672 in arrears and cannot satisfy hardship discharge test—notwithstanding plan payments totaling more than $59,000.).
In re Evans, No. 14-70700, 2015 WL 1278911, at *5 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2015) (Gorman) (Dismissal for unreasonable delay and bad faith with bar to refiling for one year when debtor lied about $1,600 debt to employer to permit full payment of that debt, debtor misled trustee and creditors about pending marital dissolution while negotiating transfer of residence, and debtor's "cavalier attitude" was "seriously misguided.").
In re Blanco, 520 B.R. 476, 484 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2014) (Frank) (Unreasonable delay that is prejudicial to creditors is cause for dismissal. Facts included "cavernous divide between the magnitude of the arrearage claims secured by the Debtor's real property and the Plan funding, the facial infeasibility of the Plan in light of the Debtor's income and expense disclosures, the Debtor's apparent inability to grasp the need to present a plan that addressed the feasibility issue, his failure to take any action to present any plausible theory for a plan that would satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a) after almost six (6) months and his failure to articulate any other rehabilitative rationale for the chapter 13 case[.]").
In re Ontiveros, No. 12-12457 TA, 2014 WL 347726 (Bankr. D.N.M. Jan. 31, 2014) (Thuma) (Unreasonable delay was cause for dismissal when case was pending for 18 months with no payment to creditors and debtor ceased making payments to trustee or to former spouse. In absence of evidence that Chapter 7 trustee would be able to liquidate estate and provide dividend to unsecured creditors, dismissal is in best interests of creditors.).
In re Dwek, No. 11-37368, 2013 WL 3938911, at *2 (Bankr. D.N.J. July 29, 2013) (Ferguson) (Dismissal rather than "treading water in the bankruptcy court" was better option when confirmation required resolution of claim of IRS which could take forever.).
In re Hennessy, No. 11-13793, 2013 WL 3939886 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) (Jaroslovsky) (Death of debtor was cause for dismissal. Bankruptcy Rule 1016 provides only two options when a Chapter 13 debtor dies—dismissal or continuation of the plan as if the debtor had not died.).
In re Snow, No. 12-11042, 2013 WL 960208 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Mar. 12, 2013) (Williams) (Cause for dismissal that plan dedicated nonexempt proceeds from automobile accident claim to trustee but debtor settled, received disbursement and spent all but small portion.).
In re Bauman, No. 11-11223-PB13, 2012 WL 4339616 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012) (unpublished) (Bowie) (Failure to correct incomplete schedules and to propose plan was cause for dismissal.).
In re Burgos, 476 B.R. 107 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2012) (Morris) (Case was dismissed for unreasonable delay. Debtor failed to timely file plan, to begin payments to trustee or to file required documents under § 521(a).).
In re Izen, No. 12-31020-H3-13, 2012 WL 2994497 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. July 20, 2012) (Paul) (Cause for dismissal of third Chapter 13 in less than one year that debtor failed to begin payments.).
In re Ott, No. 12-61310, 2012 WL 2579308 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio July 3, 2012) (unpublished) (Kendig) (Cause for dismissal that pro se, incarcerated debtor used wrong petition form and did not file schedules, means test form, or statement of financial affairs; no stay pending appeal of dismissal.).
In re Woods, No. 11-02786-TLM, 2012 WL 2343897 (Bankr. D. Idaho June 20, 2012) (Myers) (Cause to dismiss that debtor delayed obtaining confirmation, to creditors' prejudice.).
In re Figueroa, No. 07-00964 (ESL), 2012 WL 1035903 (Bankr. D.P.R. Mar. 27, 2012) (Lamoutte) (Plan default and lack of regular income were cause for dismissal.).
In re Shelly, 458 B.R. 740 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2011) (Shea-Stonum) (Cause for dismissal that plan was not feasible because debtors could not pay IRS secured claim in full.).
Hodder v. Wilshire Credit Corp. (In re Hodder), No. 4:10-ap-00798-JMM, 2011 WL 4073005 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2011) (Marlar) (Cause for dismissal that debtors failed to confirm plan for three years; case would be dismissed unless, within 30 days, debtors amended plan, maintained current payments on residence and complied with prior stipulation that acknowledged validity of home mortgage.).
In re Aldridge, No. 10-36799, 2011 WL 3889246 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2011) (Whipple) (When projected disposable income calculation requires debtors to pay $2,500 per month to unsecured creditors and debtors are financially unable to pay that amount into plan, confirmation is denied, leave to further amend would be futile and cause for dismissal is present.).
In re Nwonwu, No. 11-12608-SSM, 2011 WL 3586078 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2011) (Mitchell) (Cause for dismissal that plan was not feasible, debtor was unable to comply with loan modification that reduced mortgage payments, home was uninhabitable because of fire damage and debtor could not afford repairs.).
In re Hager, 447 B.R. 876, 876 (Bankr. D. Minn. Apr. 13, 2011) (O'Brien) (Cause for dismissal that Chapter 13 case has been pending for eight months and after five amended plans, debtors are "unable or unwilling to propose a confirmable plan.").
In re Derose, No. 08-00461, 2010 WL 5128616 (Bankr. D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2010) (unpublished) (Teel) (Motion to dismiss for failure to pay postpetition condominium assessments would require further pleadings and hearing; confirmed plan was unclear as to treatment of condominium association debt.).
In re Euliano, 442 B.R. 177, 188-89 (Bankr. D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2010) (Boroff) (It was cause for dismissal that plan failed to provide full payment of prepetition arrearage on mortgage. Confirmed plan proposed to cure and maintain mortgage under § 1322(b)(5). Plan stated arrearage as $8,000. Mortgage holder did not object to confirmation but filed timely postconfirmation proof of claim showing arrearage of more than $15,000. Plan payments were not sufficient to pay higher arrearage amount within 60 months. Failure of plan to provide payment in full of allowed prepetition arrears constituted unreasonable delay prejudicial to mortgage creditor. Court is critical of trustee and other parties for permitting plan to be confirmed without addressing discrepancy between plan terms and proof of claim. Section 1322(b)(5) requires debtors to cure default within reasonable time. Curing default over more than 60-month plan was not reasonable. In contrast to United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 130 S. Ct. 1367, 176 L. Ed. 2d 158 (Mar. 23, 2010), in which proposed treatment of student loans was inconsistent with Code from outset, "it cannot be conclusively determined that a plan fails to comply with § 1322(b)(5) until the applicable deadlines for filing and objecting to proofs of claim have passed. . . . Where the deadline for filing claims falls after the deadline for objecting to a Chapter 13 plan, the failure of a creditor to object to a plan on the grounds that the plan has misstated the amount of the claim can not [sic], consistent with due process, bind the creditor with respect to the amount which the creditor is required to identify no earlier than the deadline for filing proofs of claim. Thus, the Debtors' proposed Plan 'treatment' of the Countrywide Claim—payment of less than the full prepetition arrears—does not preclude the Court from its postconfirmation conclusion that the Plan presents an unreasonable delay prejudicial to creditors." Debtor was given opportunity to propose modification within 30 days.).
In re Cockhren, No. 08-01382, 2010 WL 3952880 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Oct. 7, 2010) (Kilburg) (Cause for dismissal included unreasonable delay prejudicial to secured creditor and material default when debtor failed to comply with confirmed plan and failed to make payments to secured creditor.).
In re Pittman, No. 08-08662-8-RDD, 2010 WL 2206919 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 27, 2010) (unpublished) (Doub) (Cause for dismissal that debtors refused to file modified plan to increase payments to creditors to account for inheritance within 180 days of petition. Inheritance was property of estate under § 541(a)(5)(A), and debtors were obligated to modify plan to increase percentage to unsecureds as requested by trustee.).
In re Grant, 428 B.R. 504 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 24, 2010) (Squires) (Cause for dismissal that debtor had materially defaulted in payments and full payment of unsecured creditors required by confirmed plan could not be completed in maximum five-year term. Debtor missed opportunity to seek modification of confirmed plan, and debtor was bound by confirmation under § 1327(a).).
In re Shatalin, No. 09-11796-RGM, 2010 WL 318297 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2010) (Mayer) (Cause for dismissal that debtor failed to make first payment required by § 1326(a)(1); consistent with local rule, when trustee certified that first payment was not timely made, clerk of court was ordered to dismiss Chapter 13 case.).
In re Ward, 423 B.R. 22 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2010) (Craig) (Although debtor was not serial filer, cause for dismissal under § 1307(c) that debtor engaged in state court and bankruptcy actions to prevent purchaser at prepetition foreclosure sale from obtaining possession of property.).
In re Jenkins, No. 09-36433-H3-13, 2010 WL 56003 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2010) (Paul) (In third Chapter 13 case, cause for dismissal included unreasonable delay by debtor that was prejudicial to creditors under § 1307(c)(1) and failure to commence timely payments under § 1307(c)(4). Court declined to grant in rem relief, since BAPCPA added other remedies for creditors in event debtor filed again.).
In re Alvarado, No. 09-40855-R, 2009 WL 3617655, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished) (Rhoades) ("[D]ebtors' failure to confirm a Chapter 13 plan in this case after two confirmation hearings constitutes an unreasonable delay that is prejudicial to creditors, and such failure constitutes cause for the dismissal of this case with prejudice to re-filing pursuant to 11 USC §§ 349(a) and 1307(c).").
In re Allen, No. 07-20389-TLM, 2009 WL 3242106 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 1, 2009) (unpublished) (Myers) (Default under confirmed plan is cause to dismiss when debtors did not show sufficient basis to modify plan under § 1329(a).).
In re Long, No. 09-10582-FJB, 2009 WL 1606476, at *2 (Bankr. D. Mass. June 4, 2009) (Bailey) (Reconsideration of dismissal for payment default and failure to file necessary documents is futile when debtor was 15 years in arrears on mortgage and debtor acting pro se "lacks the legal wherewithal to file a confirmable plan on her own." Debtor and her husband "have proven adept only at delay.").
In re Hymes, No. F08-00812-DMD, 2009 WL 8413046 (Bankr. D. Alaska May 13, 2009) (MacDonald) (Cause for dismissal that pro se debtors missed 15-day deadline to file plan after conversion to Chapter 13. $300,000 disputed tax claim was no excuse for failure to timely file plan.).
In re Johnston, No. 4:05-bk-04340-JMM, 2009 WL 1259975 (Bankr. D. Ariz. May 5, 2009) (Marlar) (Cause for dismissal that debtors failed to make nine monthly payments to trustee. Debtors had benefited from nearly five years of protection from creditors, yet failed to make minimum monthly payments of $150 that would have paid creditors 2%.).
In re Schafer, No. 08-13812DWS, 2009 WL 2913439 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2009) (Sigmund) (Cause for dismissal that debtor had insufficient income to make proposed plan payments.).
In re Bates, No. 08-79346, 2009 WL 6499129 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2009) (Massey) (Cause for dismissal without prejudice that debtor failed to submit a confirmable plan under § 1307(c)(5).).
In re Maxfield, No. 04-60355, 2009 WL 2105953 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2009) (unpublished) (Lindquist) (In pre-BAPCPA case, § 521(j)(1) did not apply and debtor's failure to pay postpetition federal income taxes was not per se cause for case dismissal under § 1307(c). Failure to pay postpetition taxes may be evidence of lack of good faith. Confirmed plan had no provision for postpetition taxes under § 1322(b)(6), and IRS did not file claim for postpetition taxes under § 1305.).
In re Foley, No. 07-16433BF, 2008 WL 5411070 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2008) (Fox) (Cause for dismissal under § 1307(c)(5) that confirmation was denied for lack of feasibility. There was no legitimate purpose for further administration in Chapter 13.).
In re O'Connor, No. 08-60641-13, 2008 WL 4516374, at *20 (Bankr. D. Mont. Sept. 30, 2008) (Kirscher) (Cause for dismissal that first confirmation hearing was "a waste of the Trustee's time and of scarce judicial resources" and second confirmation hearing ended in denial of confirmation because debtors did not satisfy disposable income test. Notwithstanding cause for dismissal, debtors are permitted third opportunity to confirm a plan subject to condition: "If the Chapter 13 Trustee after review of the further amended Plan files any further objections to confirmation, on any point, the Court will dismiss the case without further notice or hearing[.]".).
In re Ferrell, No. 04-40048, 2008 WL 2857141 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. July 21, 2008) (Rhoades)
(Cause for dismissal found where debtors were in default of agreed order that provided future defaults would result in trustee submitting certificate of noncompliance and order of dismissal. Under
In re Wrubleski, 380 B.R. 635 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2008) (Olson) (Tax protestor's motion to reconsider dismissal is denied; debtor did not possess money judgment against federal government or any other liquidated claim to offset prepetition tax obligation.).
In re Kilpatrick, No. 6:03-bk-02732-KSJ, 2007 WL 4707331, at *1, *3 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2007) (Jennemann) (In case of "prolific litigator," cause for dismissal is failure to make regular payments; debtor's motion to reconsider and to remove trustee is "frivolous.").
In re Hendrick, No. 02-35038, 2007 WL 2482887 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2007) (Cause for dismissal that debtor was in default of seven plan payments and had failed to account for $253,000 received from sale of business.).
In re Graboyes, 371 B.R. 113 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 11, 2007) (Because of prolonged dispute with principal creditor that filed secured proof of claim that court ultimately disallowed, case filed in 2002 was still not confirmed; court set confirmation hearing with notice that failure to obtain confirmation may be cause for dismissal due to unreasonable delay that is prejudicial to creditors.).
In re Jackson, No. 06-13808ELF, 2007 WL 1188202 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2007) (Case dismissed under § 1307(c)(1) for unreasonable and prejudicial delay, when seven months after filing case is not ready for confirmation. Delay includes inadequate schedules that were uncorrected for six months. Debtor and counsel reacted to creditors' motions rather than preparing for confirmation.).
In re Dean, No. 06-71654-pwb, 2006 WL 6589024 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Dec. 18, 2006) (Bonapfel) (Cause for dismissal that debtor had no need for bankruptcy relief to manage state court dispute with two banks over ownership of wire-transferred funds. Debtor was current on all obligations, had no pending real estate foreclosures or personal property repossessions and he intended to pay all unsecured debt.).
In re Pearson, 354 B.R. 558 (Bankr. D. Mass. Oct. 13, 2006) (Cause for dismissal that Chapter 13 case was filed to thwart collection by creditor with fraud judgment, statements and schedules were inaccurate, disposable income "inexplicably" changed in response to objections to confirmation and debtor engaged in "numeric gymnastics.").
In re Caise, 359 B.R. 152 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2006) (Case dismissed for debtors' failure to make proposed plan payments; debtors' attorney ordered to refund fees to debtors when attorney failed to adequately supervise paralegal.).
In re Leggett, 335 B.R. 227 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Aug. 19, 2005) (Bonapfel) (Case dismissed to permit litigation of liability in district court determination of debtor's liability on alleged $1.9 million debt was essential to eligibility.).
In re Gonzalez, No. 00-50774-RLJ-13, 2005 WL 1819948 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. July 8, 2005) (unpublished) (Jones) (Cause for dismissal that debtors failed to file and pay income taxes during case, even though debtors are within five months of completing 60-month plan.).
In re Fredricksen, 325 B.R. 302 (Bankr. D. Or. Apr. 11, 2005) (withdrawn from bound volume) (withdrawn from publication) (Ineligibility is cause for dismissal under § 1307(c).).
In re Moore, 319 B.R. 504, 517 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2005) (Bankruptcy court puts debtor's bar on notice that Chapter 13 cases will be dismissed based on delay that is prejudicial to creditors when counsel is not prepared to prosecute confirmation of a plan on the date set for the confirmation hearing. "[T]he debtor and counsel must be prepared to carry the burden of proof for plan confirmation on the assigned date of the confirmation hearing. If the debtor and counsel are unable to do that, if the failure is without good reason, and if the delay is prejudicial to creditors, then the Court may dismiss the case. Failure to review the claims docket, failure to file timely objections to claims and motions to value collateral, and any other failure to comply with the Initial Order are very substantial factors that the Court will consider in determining whether there is unreasonable delay prejudicial to creditors.").