11 U.S.C. § 1323
Modification of plan before confirmation
The debtor is permitted to modify the plan before confirmation without court approval so long as the modified plan, which becomes the plan on filing, complies with the requirements of section 1322.
The original acceptance or rejection of a plan by the holder of a secured claim remains binding unless the modified plan changes the rights of the holder and the holder withdraws or alters its earlier acceptance or rejection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Maney v. Kagenveama, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008).
Maney v. Kagenveama, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008). “11 U.S.C. § 1323 . Because Congress directly addressed the modification of plans in other sections, we need not transform § 1325 into a plan modification tool.”
In Re Toth, 61 B.R. 160 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986). “ed that it is not so bound, because: (i) it received no notice at all of the Amended Plan until October 31, 1985, when it presented its motion to modify the stay; and (ii) the Amended Plan impaired Talman’s rights, and therefore it was entitled to, but did not receive, twenty…”
In the Matter of Ronald J. Witkowski, Debtor-Appellant, 16 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 1994). “Witkowski amended the proposed plan to provide for payments of $600 prior to its confirmation, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1323 . 2 . The original proposed plan provide for 36 monthly payments.”
Maney v. Kagenveama, 527 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). “11 U.S.C. § 1323 . Because Congress directly addressed the modification of plans in other sections, we need not transform § 1325 into a plan modifica- tion tool.”
In Re Bulson, 327 B.R. 830 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2005). “11 U.S.C. § 1323 (a). If a debtor does so modify his plan, the plan as modified becomes the plan for purposes of confirmation.”
In re Shelton, 592 B.R. 193 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2018). “11 U.S.C. §§ 1323 (c), 1325(a)(5)(A). Objections and acceptances clearly have different scopes and different purposes.”
Hamilton v. Lanning (In Re Lanning), 545 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2008). “A Chapter 13 debtor may modify the plan prior to confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1323 (a), but any effort by the debtor to deviate from Form B22C “disposable income” through pre-confirmation modification begs the question of whether the forward-looking approach is proper or not.”
Mason v. Young, 237 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2001). “11 U.S.C. § 1323 (a). 4. Type of debt sought to be discharged and whether any such debt is non-dischargeable in Chapter 7 Relying on our precedent in Pioneer Bank, 888 F.”
In Re Alan Wayne Raynard, 327 B.R. 623 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2005). “11 U.S.C. § 1323 . This plan shall be hereinafter referred to as the “April 25 amended plan.”
Barbosa v. Solomon, 235 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2000). “” 11 U.S.C. § 1323 (c). 10 . Section 1325(a) of the Code provides, in the pertinent part, that the courts "shall confirm a plan if” (1) it complies with all applicable provisions of the Code; (2) it "has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law”; (3) the…”
Bank One, NA v. Leuellen (In Re Leuellen), 322 B.R. 648 (S.D. Ind. 2005). “11 U.S.C. § 1323 (c) (emphasis added). “It seems clear, therefore, that the drafters of section 1329 envisioned that the rights of secured claim holders may be affected by post-confirmation modifications.”
In re Coughlin, 568 B.R. 461 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017). “” 11 U.S.C. § 1323 (c). Section 1325(a), in relevant part, provides that the modified plan “must also be proposed in good faith under § 1325(a)(3), must meet the ‘best interest test’ of distributing more value to creditors than they would receive in liquidation under §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.