U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 13— ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITH REGULAR INCOME › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— THE PLAN

11 U.S.C. § 1327

Effect of confirmation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and each creditor, whether or not the claim of such creditor is provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has objected to, has accepted, or has rejected the plan.(b) Except as otherwise provided in the plan or the order confirming the plan, the confirmation of a plan vests all of the property of the estate in the debtor.(c) Except as otherwise provided in the plan or in the order confirming the plan, the property vesting in the debtor under subsection (b) of this section is free and clear of any claim or interest of any creditor provided for by the plan.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2650.)Historical and Revision Notessenate report no. 95–989

Subsection (a) binds the debtor and each creditor to the provisions of a confirmed plan, whether or not the claim of the creditor is provided for by the plan and whether or not the creditor has accepted, rejected, or objected to the plan. Unless the plan itself or the order confirming the plan otherwise provides, confirmation is deemed to vest all property of the estate in the debtor, free and clear of any claim or interest of any creditor provided for by the plan.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,215 cases (105 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Padilla v. GMAC Mortg. Corp. (In Re Padilla), 389 B.R. 409 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Padilla v. GMAC Mortg. Corp. (In Re Padilla), 389 B.R. 409 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008). · cites it 26× “A Violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1327 (a) May Be Remedied Through 11 U.”
SLW Capital, LLC v. Mansaray-Ruffin, 530 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “11 U.S.C. § 1327 . [6] In In re Szostek, we explained that, "[u]nder § 1327, a confirmation order is res judicata as to all issues decided or which could have been decided at the hearing on confirmation.”
Max v. Northington (In Re Northington), 876 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “The bankruptcy court separately (and alternatively) concluded that under 11 U.S.C. § 1327 (a) and “[t]he doctrine of res judicata,” the order confirming Wilber’s Chapter 13 plan precluded 6 Case: 16-17467 Date Filed: 12/11/2017 Page: 7 of 48 any relief for TitleMax, which the…”
Yoon v. Krick (In Re Krick), 373 B.R. 593 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2007). · cites it 20× “However, having now thoroughly reviewed the entire record, the Court has concluded that the outcome of this proceeding is controlled by proceedings in the Chapter 13 case of William Charles Krick and Brenda Diane Krick (case number 02-62419), and the application of 11 U.S.C. §…”
Barbosa v. Solomon, 235 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2000). · cites it 7× “The controversy in this appeal arises out of the not-so-infrequent scenario where, after the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan under Chapter 13, but before the case is closed or converted to Chapter 7, the debtors sell property of the estate which “vested” in them “free and…”
Shook v. CBIC (In Re Shook), 278 B.R. 815 (9th Cir. BAP 2002). · cites it 6× “" 11 U.S.C. § 1327 (b) and (c) (emphasis supplied).”
United States v. Richman, 124 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “11 U.S.C. § 1327 (b) The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court’s order of disgorgement was proper because the Talbots’ house was property of the bankruptcy estate.”
Coastal Credit, L.L.C. v. Mellors (In Re Mellors), 372 B.R. 763 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2007). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1327 , a confirmed plan is binding on a debtor and each creditor.”
Baldwin v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Baldwin), 307 B.R. 251 (M.D. Ala. 2004). · cites it 9× “, and Citifinancial Corporation LLC (“Creditor”) 1 raised five arguments as to why the bankruptcy court should grant summary judgment enjoining Sam Baldwin (“Debtor”) and Lula Baldwin (collectively “Consumers”) 2 from prosecuting an adversary proceeding: 1) judicial estoppel, 2)…”
In Re Petruccelli, 113 B.R. 5 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1990). · cites it 6× “The IRS responds to debtor’s argument by citing 11 U.S.C. § 1327 (b), which describes the effect of confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan: (b) Except as otherwise provided in the plan or the order confirming the plan, the confirmation of a plan vests all of the property of the…”
In Re Fred J. Szostek, Denise M. Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405 (3d Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “We find that 11 U.S.C.A. § 1327 (a) provides as follows: Effect of confirmation *1409 (a) The provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and each creditor, whether or not the claim of such creditor is provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has objected…”
Cano v. GMAC Mortg. Corp. (In Re Cano), 410 B.R. 506 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009). · cites it 4× “11 U.S.C. § 1327 (a). As described in greater detail later in this Memorandum Opinion, GMAC’s rights to charge and col *524 lect the disputed fees and costs were incorporated into Plaintiffs’ plans through §§ 1322(b)(2) and (5).”
Show all 1,215 citing cases →
11 U.S.C. § 1327(a): 6 cases
Helfand v. Nationall Union Fire Ins., 10 Cal. App. 4th 869 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
In re Jeffers, 572 B.R. 681 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2017).
Lamarche v. Miles, 416 B.R. 53 (E.D.N.Y 2009).
Cripps v. Foley (In re Cripps), 566 B.R. 172 (W.D. Mich. 2017).
Lisa Catherine Clancy (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2020).
11 U.S.C. § 1327(b): 2 cases
In re Jeffers, 572 B.R. 681 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2017).
In Re Mutchler, 95 B.R. 748 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1989).
11 U.S.C. § 1327(c): 1 case
Waterfield Mortg. Co. v. Britton (In Re Britton), 35 B.R. 373 (N.D. Ind. 1982).
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.