Metz, Matter of
Citation | 820 F.2d 1495 |
Decision Date | 06 July 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-6474,86-6474 |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Parties | 17 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 63, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,881 In the Matter of John Joseph METZ, Debtor. DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. John Joseph METZ, Appellee. |
Thomas C. Starrett, Costa Mesa, Cal., for appellant.
Radmila A. Fulton, San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
On Appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit.
Before ANDERSON, SKOPIL and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of a debtor's chapter 13 plan. Appellant Downey Savings and Loan Association ("Downey") argues that appellee debtor Metz's successive filing of chapter 7 and chapter 13 petitions constitutes bad faith. Alternatively, Downey argues that if the chapter 13 plan was not filed in bad faith, the plan is nevertheless deficient because it undercompensates Downey for its secured interest. We reject Downey's contentions and affirm.
In 1984 Metz filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition listing both secured and unsecured creditors. The list of debts included Downey's secured interest in Metz's home and a series of judgment liens recorded against the property. The chapter 7 proceeding resulted in the total discharge of Metz's debts. There was no distribution to any creditors. All judgment liens were extinguished. Downey's interest was reduced to a secured lien against the property. Delinquent property taxes remained due against the value of the property but not as an obligation against Metz.
On the same day Metz received his chapter 7 discharge, he filed a proposed chapter 13 plan that sought to cure his delinquent mortgage payments to Downey and thereby avoid foreclosure on his home. None of the unsecured creditors or judgment lien holders whose respective debts and liens had been discharged by the chapter 7 proceedings were included in the proposed chapter 13 plan. The plan made no provision for payment of a market rate of interest on the mortgage arrearages. The plan also failed to include any provision for payment of the delinquent property taxes. The bankruptcy court dismissed Metz's chapter 13 plan without prejudice to refiling.
Downey thereafter continued foreclosure proceedings against the property. Only Metz's submission of a revised chapter 13 plan prevented Downey from completing a foreclosure sale. Metz's revised plan called for repayment of arrears to Downey over a thirty-six month period with interest on the arrears at market rate, continued mortgage payments at the contract rate, and payment of delinquent property taxes over the first six months of the plan. Again, no provision was made for the unsecured debts discharged by the chapter 7 proceeding.
Our review of the bankruptcy judge's confirmation of Metz's chapter 13 plan is the same as the review by the BAP. See In re Mellor, 734 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir.1984). A bankruptcy judge's finding that a debtor's plan is proposed in good faith is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See In re Baker, 736 F.2d 481, 482 (8th Cir.1984) ( ); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1983) ( ); In re Slade, 15 B.R. 910, 911 (9th Cir. BAP 1981) ( ).
Metz's successive filing of bankruptcy petitions does not constitute bad faith per se. See, e.g., Baker, 736 F.2d at 482 ( ); In re Gayton,, 61 B.R. 612, 614 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) ( ); In re Beauty, 42 B.R. 655, 657 (E.D.La.1984) (, )appeal dismissed, 745 F.2d 53 (5th Cir.1984) (table). Nevertheless, we agree with Downey that Metz's successive filings may be examined together and the result achieved by such filings reviewed against the statutory requirements. See Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149, 153 (4th Cir.1986) ( ); In re Diego, 6 B.R. 468, 469 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal.1980) ( ).
Chapter 13 allows a mortgagor debtor to cure a prepetition acceleration of home mortgage debt triggered by default. Grubbs v. Houston First Am. Sav. Ass'n, 730 F.2d 236, 237 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). Although a debtor cannot "modify" (e.g., change the length of the contract or amount of the balance or balloon payment) a claim secured only by the debtor's principal residence, courts have uniformly held that 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1322(b)(2) (1984 Supp.) allows the debtor to "cure" (i.e., pay or bring current) arrearages on the debt and thereby reinstate the debt. See, e.g., In re Glenn, 760 F.2d 1428, 1435 (6th Cir.1985) ( ); In re Clark, 738 F.2d 869, 874 (7th Cir.1984) ( ). Thus, while modification of the debt is prohibited, Metz's chapter 13 plan is a permissible "cure" of a claim because it simply reinstates the original debt after correcting the arrearages. See In re Seidel, 752 F.2d 1382, 1386 (9th Cir.1985) ( ).
Downey argues, however, that Metz's chapter 13 plan involuntarily treated Downey as a creditor even though Metz's obligation to pay Downey was discharged in the prior chapter 7 proceeding. Bankruptcy decisions are not uniform in their treatment of a debtor's proposed cure of a mortgage default following discharge in chapter 7. One view appears to be that, "a chapter 13 debtor cannot cure such a default when the underlying obligation secured by the mortgage has been discharged in a previous chapter 7 case." In re Lagasse, 66 B.R. 41, 43 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1986). See also In re Reyes, 59 B.R. 301, 302 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1986) ( ); In re McKinstry, 56 B.R. 191 192 (Bkrtcy D.Vt.1986) (); In re Brown, 52 B.R. 6, 6 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1985) ( ). Lagasse, however, rejected that view by reasoning that when a debtor receives a chapter 7 discharge of a secured debt, the debt relationship between the debtor and the secured party is transformed into a nonrecourse obligation. Lagasse, 66 B.R. at 43. Thus, Lagasse holds that "chapter 13 debtors are not barred, as a matter of law, from including in a plan treatment of a mortgage claim where the underlying obligation of the mortgage had been discharged in the debtors' prior bankruptcy case." Id.
Similarly, in In re Lewis, 63 B.R. 90, 90 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1986), the court held that even though a debtor's personal liability on a home mortgage has been discharged, the debtor may propose a confirmable plan under chapter 13 to satisfy arrearages. The court noted that under chapter 13, a creditor's "claim" includes not only a right to payment but also the right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance. Id. at 91. Therefore, "a claim may include a creditor's encumbrance against property of the estate although there is no in personam liability against the debtor." Id. at 92.
We agree that a chapter 13 petitioner may include a mortgage claim within a plan even though the underlying obligation of the mortgage was discharged in the debtors' prior bankruptcy case. We find no statutory prohibition to such a practice except the good faith filing requirement of section 1325(a)(3). Thus, although a chapter 13 plan may, as a matter of law, cure arrearages on a mortgage debt discharged by chapter 7, the plan may nevertheless violate the purpose and spirit of chapter 13 and thus not be submitted in good faith. See, e.g., Beauty, 42 B.R. at 657 ( ); In re Sanchez, 20 B.R. 431, 433 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Tex.1982) ( ); In re Sardella, 8 B.R. 401, 403 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1981) ( ).
To judge the good faith of Metz's filings, we apply a "totality of the circumstances" test. In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir.1982). The BAP found Metz's circumstances justified the bankruptcy court's confirmation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Lopez, BAP No. CC-06-1359-MkBPa.
...are "permissible modifications." In re Lopez, 350 B.R. at 872. Similarly, the bankruptcy court cited Downey Savings and Loan Assoc. v. Metz (In re Metz), 820 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir.1987), for the proposition that a "permissible cure" is not a modification of the underlying debt: Although a debt......
-
In re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 91-53976-ASWCZ. Adv. No. 92-5006.
...these limits. See Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Spears (In re Thompson), 894 F.2d 1227 (10th Cir.1990); Downey Savings and Loan Association v. Metz (In re Metz), 820 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir.1987). Bankruptcy courts also often look to the facts of a transaction, rather than its state law titles, to d......
-
In re Herrera, Bankruptcy No. 96 B 02069.
...Taylor), 884 F.2d 478, 485 (9th Cir.1989) ("Successive filings may be evidence of bad faith. . . ."); Downey Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Metz (In re Metz), 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir.1987) (While successive filings are not necessarily in bad faith per se, "successive filings may be examined toge......
-
In re Liptak, 03 B 29854.
...B.R. 892, 902 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2001); In re N.R. Guaranteed Retirement, 112 B.R. 263, 276-77 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1990) (citing In re Metz, 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir.1987)); e.g., Matter of Love, 957 F.2d 1350, 1352-53, 1357-59 (7th In spite of these analytical difficulties, other identified tes......
-
The Last Dance: Righting the Supreme Court's Greatest Bankruptcy Apostasy.
...53 B.R. 307, 309 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1985); In re Brown, 52 B.R. 6, 7 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1985). But see Downey Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Metz, 820 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir. 1987) (deciding that a mortgage claim whose underlying obligation was already discharged still could be included in a Chapter 13 pe......
-
Finding a "cure:" How Much Interest Is Enough for a Chapter 11 Cure?
...Corp., 160 F.3d 1054, 1059 (5th Cir. 1998) ("The intent to effect a 'cure' could not be inferred from § 1124").36. See In re Metz, 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that the cure provisions of chapter 13 allow "the debtor to 'cure' (i.e., pay or bring current) arrearages on the d......