In re Nickels, Bankruptcy No. 2-79-03121.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1980
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 2-79-03121.
• Citation: 4 BR 481
• Parties: In re Donald R. (Ray) NICKELS, Judy E. (Elaine) Nickels, Debtors.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Ohio

4 B.R. 481 (1980)

In re Donald R. (Ray) NICKELS, Judy E. (Elaine) Nickels, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 2-79-03121.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, E.D.

January 8, 1980.

Mitchel D. Cohen, Columbus, Ohio, for debtors.

ORDER DENYING CONFIRMATION

R.J. SIDMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the requested confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan proposed by Donald and Judy Nickels. The plan, as amended, calls for the payment of $280.00 per month, the payment of all secured creditors provided for by the plan to the full value of their security, the payment of an unsecured creditor of these debtors, namely Beneficial Finance Company, 100% of its claim, and payment of no dividend to all other unsecured creditors. The first mortgage on the debtors' real estate is to be paid directly by the debtors outside the plan. The proposed length of this Chapter 13 plan is fifty-one (51) months.

This case is another in a series of decisions rendered by this Court in its attempt to interpret the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The interpretation process has been evolutionary in nature, giving due regard for the legislative intent behind the enactment of Chapter 13, but also giving effect to the explicit provision of the statute as finally passed by Congress. There is also the matter of dealing with the historical practices developed under the now-displaced Chapter XIII, and meshing that practice with the new Code provisions. Quite clearly, Congress intended by enacting both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, to provide debtors a choice of different remedies in terms of solving their financial difficulties. The alternatives are not, in this Court's judgment, interchangeable. Each remedy has its own purpose and requirements. The debtors in this proceeding have chosen the remedy of Chapter 13 and the Court must examine the requirements of that remedy in passing upon confirmation.

The debtors have chosen to classify claims and provide for a differing treatment of an unsecured claimant, Beneficial Finance, on the one hand, and all other unsecured claimants on the other. This difference in treatment is alleged to be justified by the fact that Beneficial Finance Company has a co-signer on its obligation, namely Homer Nickels, the father of the debtor Donald R. Nickels. Confirmation of this plan must be denied for two reasons. First of all, no cause has been shown to this Court why the plan provides for payments over a period that is longer...