Meyer v. Hill (In Re Hill) (2001)

In light of Congress's addition of the "however clause" to § 1322(b)(1), Thompson did not apply this panel's Wolff test for ascertaining unfair discrimination when considering the preferential treatment of a codebtor consumer claim and instead adopted its own test consisting of three questions: (1) whether the claim truly is a codebtor consumer claim ( see also In re Hill, 268 B.R. at 554 (holding that "however clause" did not apply to a claim when the third party liable on …

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

In re Welsh, 465 B.R. at 847 ; Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

The phrase liable on such consumer debt with the debtor “include[s] [claims held by] codebtors, sureties, and guarantors.” Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 553 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill, (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Haw. 2011), quoting In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001)(“The debtor, as the chapter 13 plan proponent, has the burden of proof on all elements of plan confirmation.”); In re Kinsale, 617 B.R. 58 , 64 (Bankr.

“The chapter 13 trustee has an affirmative statutory duty to appear and be heard on the question of plan confirmation.” In re Escarcega, 573 B.R. 219, 234 (9th Cir. BAP 2017) (quoting Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 554-55 (9th Cir. BAP 2001)), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part sub nom.

Meyer v. Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 554 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2001) (citations omitted).

Vt. 2001). 16 In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (discussing “consumer debt” in § 1322(b)(1)). 27 17 In re Kestall, 99 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 1996); In re Steward, 175 F.3d 796 (10th Cir. 1999). 18 In re Palmer, 117 B.R. 443, 446 (Bankr.

The phrase “consumer debt” is defined in § 101(8) as a “debt incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family or household purpose.” “It is settled in this circuit that the purpose for which the debt was incurred affects whether it falls within the statutory definition of ‘consumer debt’ and that debt incurred for business ventures or other profit-seeking activities does not qualify.” Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (citation omitt…

Thus, not only did the trustee 18 have the right to appear, he had the obligation to appear and to 19 object.” Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 554-55 (9th 20 Cir. BAP 2001); see also Searles v. Riley (In re Searles), 317 21 B.R. 368, 374 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (“the chapter 13 trustee has a 22 duty to appear and be heard on plan confirmation . . .”); In re 23 Jordan, 555 B.R. 636 , 655 n.15 (Bankr.

Thus, not only did the trustee have the right to appear, he had the obligation to appear and to object.” Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 554-55 (9th Cir. BAP 2001); see also Searles v. Riley (In re Searles), 317 B.R. 368, 374 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (“the chapter 13 trustee has a duty to appear and be heard on plan confirmation ... ”); In re Jordan, 555 B.R. 636 , 655 n.15 (Bankr.

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th 8 Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th 8 Cir. BAP 2001).

Cypher Chiropractic Ctr. v. Runski -13- 1 (In re Runski), 102 F.3d 744, 746-47 (4th Cir. 1996). 2 "It is settled in this circuit that the purpose for which the 3 debt was incurred affects whether it falls within the statutory 4 definition of 'consumer debt' and that debt incurred for business 5 ventures or other profit-seeking activities does not qualify." 6 Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. BAP 7 2001) (discussing "consumer debt" in § 1322(b)(1)) (c…

Cypher Chiropractic Ctr. v. Runski -13- 1 (In re Runski), 102 F.3d 744, 746-47 (4th Cir. 1996). 2 "It is settled in this circuit that the purpose for which the 3 debt was incurred affects whether it falls within the statutory 4 definition of 'consumer debt' and that debt incurred for business 5 ventures or other profit-seeking activities does not qualify." 6 Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. BAP 7 2001) (discussing "consumer debt" in § 1322(b)(1)) (c…

“The chapter 13 trustee has an affirmative statutory duty to appear and be heard on the question of plan confirmation.” Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 554 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1302 (b)(2)(B)). .

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. 12 BAP 2001). 13 Pursuant to § 1325(a)(3), “the court shall confirm a plan if 14 . . . the plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any 15 means forbidden by law.” In examining application of the good 16 faith standard in cases involving denial of confirmation of 17 chapter 13 plans, this Panel has explained that a bankruptcy court 18 must apply a totality of the circumstances test in determining 19 good faith an…

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. 12 BAP 2001). 13 Pursuant to § 1325(a)(3), “the court shall confirm a plan if 14 . . . the plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any 15 means forbidden by law.” In examining application of the good 16 faith standard in cases involving denial of confirmation of 17 chapter 13 plans, this Panel has explained that a bankruptcy court 18 must apply a totality of the circumstances test in determining 19 good faith an…

“The Debtor, as the chapter 13 plan proponent, has the burden of proof on all elements of plan confirmation.” Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill, (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

In re Hill, 13 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 553 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (applying same language appearing in § 1322(b)(1)).

Analysis The panel in Renteria cited In re Thompson, 191 B.R. at 971-72 , noting “its test may be of some future benefit to other courts struggling to apply the unfair discrimination rule in a limited or qualified manner.” That test requires an examination of the following: (1) whether the claim truly is a codebtor consumer claim, see 11 U.S.C. § 101 (8); Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 554 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (holding that the “however clause” did not apply to a c…

Compare In re Hill, 255 B.R. 579, 580 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2000), rev’d on other grounds, 268 B.R. 548 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (“The statute clearly exempts codebtor debt from the fairness requirement.”), with In re McKown, 227 B.R. 487, 492 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998) (“this Court joins the interpretation of numerous courts which have determined that the option of providing ‘different’ treatment to a cosigned, unsecured consumer obligation does not mean that a debtor has been dealt a wild …

In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir.BAP2001); Russell, § 301:76 at 366. *797 Thus, although Schedules I and J are evidence of a debtor’s income and expenses, differences between the numbers on the Form B22C and those on the Schedules I and J do not by themselves establish a change in income or expenses that is known or virtually certain to occur.

“The debtor, as the chapter 13 plan proponent, has the burden of proof on all elements of plan confirmation.” In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill, (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP2001).

See also In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 555 , (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (“the trustee is charged with serving the interests of all creditors, secured and unsecured.”) The Trustee, after investigating the Debtors’ financial affairs, concluded that they had the ability to increase the distribution to unsecured creditors but had not done so.

In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Even if chapter 13 debtors meet their burden to demonstrate compliance with the various provisions of sections 1322(a) and 1325(a), see generally In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (“The debtor, as the chapter 13 plan proponent, has the burden of proof on all elements of plan confirmation.”), section 1325(b) states that if the chapter 13 trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to *135 confirmation of the plan, then the court may not 4 appro…

The phrase, “any individual that is liable on such debt with the debtor,” contains two separate concepts: “liable on” and “liable with.” In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 553 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

As the chapter 13 trustee has a duty to appear and be heard on plan confirmation, the community property question was within his ken. 11 U.S.C. § 1302 (b)(2)(B); Andrews v. Loheit (In re Andrews), 49 F.3d 1404, 1406-08 (9th Cir.1995); Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 554-55 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 551 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001).

See In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001).

See Patti, 304 B.R. at 188 ; see also Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548, 552 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001).

See In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001).

L. 98-353, § 316 , 98 23 Stat. 333 ; see, e.g., Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 268 B.R. 548 , 24 550 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (referring to this clause as the “however 25 clause”). 26 27 5 The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 28 §§ 1334 and 157(b)(2)(L), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 . 6 1 The “however clause” has been the subject of a significant 2 amount of debate.

Apr.ll, 2008) ("[t]he debtor has the ultimate burden of persuasion that his proposed chapter 13 plan meets the statutory requirements for confirmation”); accord, In re Hill, 268 B.R. 548, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) ("The debtor, as the chapter 13 plan proponent, has the burden of proof on all elements of plan confirmation”); In re Heath, 182 B.R. 557, 560 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) ("In general, the debtor carries the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the pla…