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. § 1330

Revocation of an order of confirmation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) On request of a party in interest at any time within 180 days after the date of the entry of an order of confirmation under section 1325 of this title, and after notice and a hearing, the court may revoke such order if such order was procured by fraud.(b) If the court revokes an order of confirmation under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall dispose of the case under section 1307 of this title, unless, within the time fixed by the court, the debtor proposes and the court confirms a modification of the plan under section 1329 of this title.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2651.)Historical and Revision Noteslegislative statements

Section 1331 of the House bill and Senate amendment is deleted in the House amendment.

Special tax provision: Section 1331 of title 11 of the House bill and the comparable provisions in sections 1322 and 1327(d) of the Senate amendment, pertaining to assessment and collection of taxes in wage earner plans, are deleted, and the governing rule is placed in section 505(c) of the House amendment. The provisions of both bills allowing assessment and collection of taxes after confirmation of the wage-earner plan are modified to allow assessment and collection after the court fixes the fact and amount of a tax liability, including administrative period taxes, regardless of whether this occurs before or after confirmation of the plan. The provision of the House bill limiting the collection of taxes to those assessed before one year after the filing of the petition is eliminated, thereby leaving the period of limitations on assessment of these nondischargeable tax liabilities the usual period provided by the Internal Revenue Code [Title 26].

senate report no. 95–989

The court may revoke an order of confirmation procured by fraud, after notice and hearing, on application of a party in interest filed within 180 days after the entry of the order. Thereafter, unless a modified plan is confirmed, the court is to convert or dismiss the chapter 13 case as provided in section 1307.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 140 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: SLW Capital, LLC v. Mansaray-Ruffin, 530 F.3d 230 (3rd Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SLW Capital, LLC v. Mansaray-Ruffin, 530 F.3d 230 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “We denied the creditor's motion because, under 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (a), a confirmed Chapter 13 *243 plan can only be revoked on account of fraud.”
Duplessis v. Valenti (In Re Valenti), 310 B.R. 138 (9th Cir. BAP 2004). · cites it 6× “Creditors’ complaint Six months after the Confirmation Order was entered, on September 16, 2002, Creditors filed a “Complaint To Revoke Order of Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan [ 11 U.S.C. § 1330 ]” (Adv. No. SV-02-01812-KL).”
In Re Fred J. Szostek, Denise M. Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405 (3rd Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “On May 20, 1988, four months after learning of the plan’s confirmation, Kissell filed a motion seeking dismissal of the debtors’ petition, revocation of confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1330 , and alternatively, modification of the plan or relief from the automatic stay.”
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010). “One such exception provides that “a complaint to revoke an order confirming a plan may be filed only within the time allowed by” 11 U. S. C. § 1330 . Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc.”
In Re Khalil & Shahin Chinichian, Debtors. Khalil & Shahin Chinichian v. Attilio Campolongo, 784 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “The Chinichians present three arguments why the bankruptcy court does not have power to revoke an order partially confirming their reorganization plan: (1) the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction because under 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (1982) no party in interest requested such relief…”
Ajaka v. BrooksAmerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “See 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (a). On January 3, 2003, Ajaka met for the first time with Charles Baird, his counsel on this appeal.”
In the Matter of Phyllis Maxine Pence, Debtor. Appeal of Pacesetter Bank of Montpelier, 905 F.2d 1107 (7th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “The appraisal turned out to be an inflated estimate of the collateral’s value, and instead of attacking the valuation head-on at the confirmation hearing, Pacesetter has chosen a collateral attack on the confirmation order where valuation may not be contested, see 11 U.S.C. §…”
In Re Bulson, 327 B.R. 830 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “Under 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (a), to prove that a debtor obtained a confirmation of his plan by fraud, the creditor must prove: (1) that the debtor made a representation regarding his compliance with *850 § 1330(a) which was materially false; (2) that the representation was either…”
In Re William FESQ, Debtor. BRANCHBURG PLAZA Assocs., L.P., Appellant, v. William FESQ, 153 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “It therefore sought revocation of confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1330 . Kissell contended that the Szosteks had obtained confirmation of their plan through fraud, and that the plan should never have been confirmed because it failed to conform to the Code’s requirement of present…”
Davis v. Holman (In re Holman), 594 B.R. 769 (D. Kan. 2018). · cites it 3× “In addition, the Trustee contends that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the court must revoke a confirmation order under 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (a) before the court *771 could consider misconduct that arose prior to that order.”
Wahrman v. Bajas (In Re Bajas), 443 B.R. 768 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 1325 (a); and 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (a). The Complaint can also be read as asserting claims pertaining to judgment liens that Plaintiffs claim to have on two parcels of real property owned by Defendants in Wayne County, Michigan.”
In Re Gregory A. Lemaire, Debtor. Paul Handeen v. Gregory A. Lemaire, 898 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir. 1990). “The comparable provisions in Chapter 13 are § 1328(e), which provides for the revocation of the debtor’s discharge if it was obtained through fraud, and 11 U.S.C. § 1330 (a), which provides for the revocation of a confirmation order if it was procured by fraud.”
Show all 140 citing cases →
— 11 U.S.C. § 1330(a) — 1 case
In Re Fred J. Szostek, Denise M. Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405 (3rd Cir. 1989). “On May 20, 1988, four months after learning of the plan’s confirmation, Kissell filed a motion seeking dismissal of the debtors’ petition, revocation of confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1330 , and alternatively, modification of the plan or relief from the automatic stay.”
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.