In re: Kenneth Gene Wilkinson

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-24334
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 POSTED TO THE WEBSITE 3 4 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 In re: Case No. 24-24334-A-13

8 KENNETH GENE WILKINSON, KGW-1, KGW-2, and DPC-3

9 MEMORNADUM REGARDING OBJECTION TO Debtor. PROOF OF CLAIM NO. 1, MOTION TO 10 CONFIRM PLAN, ECF NO. 187, AND TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE 11 12 13 Argued and submitted on November 18, 2025 14 15 at Sacramento, California 16 Honorable Fredrick E. Clement, Bankruptcy Judge Presiding 17 18 Kenneth Wilkinson, Debtor in propria persona; Neil Appearances: Enmark, Chapter 13 Trustee; Russ Stong, for Objecting 19 Creditor, Bank of New York Mellon

27 1 Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows debtors to reconfigure their 2 finances by way of a plan that binds creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1327. 3 Usually, a debtor may not modify a secured interest in real property 4 that is the debtor’s principal residence. Failure to confirm a plan 5 is cause for dismissal. 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). Kenneth Wilkson wants 6 to avoid the deed of trust that encumbers his residence, citing fraud 7 that the lender committed against his spouse 26 years ago. After 14 8 months of trying, he has not been able to do so. Should the court 9 confirm his plan or dismiss the case? 10 I. FACTS 11 The impetus behind this Chapter 13 case is a dispute between the 12 Bank of New York Mellon and debtor Kenneth Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”) and 13 regarding his residence, 3961 Nugget Lane, Placerville, California. 14 Wilkinson took title to the property in 2020 when his former spouse, 15 Lei Anne Wilkinson died. Prior to her death and without the 16 participation of Kenneth Wilkinson, Lei Wilkinson encumbered the 17 property by note and deed of trust now held by the Bank of New York 18 Mellon Trust Company. 19 A. The Dispute with the Bank of New York Mellon Trust 20 In 2021, the note went into default and, sometime thereafter, the 21 bank commenced foreclosure proceedings. In the spring of 2024, the 22 bank, acting through its agents, noticed a foreclosure sale. 23 Thereafter, Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson filed an 24 action in the U.S. District Court against PHH Mortgage Corporation and 25 Western Progressive LLC. The complaint contended that defendants PHH 26 Mortgage Corporation and Western Progressive LLC were “attempting to 27 enforce a void mortgage contract” and included causes of action for 1 dealing, injunctive relief, and quiet title. Defendants PHH Mortgage 2 Corporation and Western Progressive LLC moved to dismiss the 3 complaint. Finding a lack of standing on the part of Kenneth G. 4 Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson, the District Court dismissed the 5 complaint without leave to amend. Findings and Recommendations 2:12, 6 Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 2:24-cv-1416 (E.D. Cal. 7 February 20, 2025), adopted by Order, ECF No. 31. 8 On September 26, 2024, Western Progressive, LLC, conducted the 9 foreclosure sale for the property and the holder of the note and deed 10 of trust, Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company was the successful 11 bidder. 12 B. Wilkinson files a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy 13 On September 27, 2024, the day following the foreclosure sale, 14 Kenneth G. Wilkinson, acting in propria persona, filed a Chapter 13 15 bankruptcy petition. Schedule A/B listed 3961 Nugget Lane, 16 Placerville and described its value as $325,000. Schedule D listed a 17 secured debt against the property of $267,302.00 in favor of PHH 18 Mortgage Corporation. Western Progressive LLC and Bank of New York 19 Mellon were also listed as secured creditors. Notwithstanding the 20 foreclosure sale on the day prior to filing bankruptcy, Kenneth G. 21 Wilson answered “No” to the question: “Within 1 year before you filed 22 for bankruptcy, was any of your property repossessed, foreclosed, 23 garnished, attached, seized, or levied?” 24 On December 5, 2024, Western Progressive, LLC recorded the 25 Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale in favor of the Bank of New York Mellon Trust 26 Company. 27 The most recent Schedules I and J show that the debtor is a 1 granddaughter (age 13). Suppl. Schedules I and J, ECF No. 111. 2 Wilkinson is retired; his income is $1,899 (comprised of Social 3 Security $1,608 and the Supplemental Assistance Program $291). 4 Household expenses aggregate $3,491.11, leaving him negative 5 disposable income of $1,592.11. 6 Over the life of this case, debtor Wilkinson has proposed three 7 Chapter 13 plans. Despite the passage of 14 months, Wilkinson has not 8 confirmed a plan. 9 The claims bar date has passed. The only creditor that filed a 10 Proof of Claim was Bank of New York Mellon; rather than reflecting the 11 foreclosure sale, the claim shows a secured claim in the amount of 12 $277,124.94, including a delinquency of $52,783.85. 13 Over the life of the plan Wilkinson has paid the Chapter 13 14 trustee an aggregate of $420. Status Report, ECF No. 225. 15 C. The Adversary Proceeding 16 Shortly after filing the Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Wilkinsons 17 brought an adversary proceeding against PHH Mortgage Corporation; 18 Western Progressive, LLC; Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Bank of New York 19 Mellon Trust, and Aldridge Pite LLP. The complaint pleads causes of 20 action for declaratory relief; unconscionable contract, violation of 21 the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, failure of consideration, and 22 violation of the stay. Compl., Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, 23 No. 25-2061 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. May 16, 2025). The defendants filed 24 Rule 12(b)(6). After taking argument, invoking the doctrine of issue 25 preclusion, this court dismissed all causes of action (except the stay 26 violation) with prejudice. Mem., Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage 27 Corporation, No. 25-2061 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.2025), ECF No. 126. Except 1 violation cause of action. 2 II. PROCEDURE 3 Before the court are three interrelated matters. Wilkinson 4 objects to the Bank of New York Mellon Claim and seeks to confirm his 5 Chapter 13 plan. The claim objection contains a long list of 6 grievances. The Chapter 13 plan provides for payments to the trustee 7 of $20 per month for 60 months. Chapter 13 plan §§ 2.01, 2.03, ECF 8 No. 210. Other than the Chapter 13 trustee’s fees, the plan provides 9 for no payments to creditors (including the Bank of New York Mellon). 10 The non-standard provisions of the plan provide: 11 7.01 Treatment of Disputed Secured Claim No. 1-1: The Debtor disputes Claim No. 1-1 in its entirety as 12 fraudulent, void, and unenforceable. The claim is asserted by a jurisdictional ghost with no legal capacity in 13 California, and the underlying debt was confessed to be ZERO in a sworn IRS Form 1099-A. The treatment of this 14 claim is contingent on the final, non-appealable outcome of the concurrently noticed Motion to Disallow Claim (DCN: 15 KGW-1) and the related Adversary Proceeding (No. 25-02061). Pursuant to this plan, the Debtor shall pay $0.00 on 16 account of this claim. 17 7.02 Lien Avoidance: Upon entry of a final, non-appealable judgment in Adversary Proceeding 25-02061 that results in a 18 net judgment in favor of the Debtor, or any order of this Court disallowing Claim 1-1, any and all liens asserted by 19 the creditor against the Debtor’s principal residence shall be deemed avoided and extinguished as a matter of law. 20 21 Id. at §§ 7.01-7.02. 22 Chapter 13 trustee David P. Cusick moves to dismiss the case for 23 failure to propose and confirm a Chapter 13 plan. That motion has 24 been pending for eight months and has been continued multiple times to 25 allow the debtor to propose a plan. 26 III. JURISDICTION 27 This court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a)-(b), 157(b); 1 Jurisdiction is core, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (arising “under title 11”): 2 (1) as to plan confirmation, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L); 11 U.S.C. §§ 3 1322, 1325; Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 503 (2015); In 4 re Oakhurst Lodge, Inc., 582 B.R. 784, 790 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2018); 5 (2) as to the objection to the claim of the Bank of New York Mellon, 6 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B); Wood v. Wood (In re Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97 7 (5th Cir. 1987); In re Bellucci, 119 B.R. 763, 769, fn. 12 (Bankr. 8 E.D. Cal. 1990); In re Sinclair, 563 B.R. 554, 564 (Bankr. E.D. 9 Cal.2017); and (3) as to the motion to dismiss, 28 U.S.C. § 10 157(b)(2)(A); In re Hickman, 384 B.R. 832, 836 (9th Cir. BAP 2008); In 11 re Malek, 591 B.R. 420, 426 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2018). 12 IV. DISCUSSION 13 A. Claim Objection 14 Section 502(a) provides that “[a] claim or interest, proof of 15 which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, 16 unless a party in interest . . . objects.” 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). A 17 claim must be disallowed if it is unenforceable under applicable 18 nonbankruptcy law. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1); accord Diamant v. 19 Kasparian (In re S. Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th 20 Cir. 1999). 21 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) prescribes the 22 evidentiary effect of “[a] proof of claim executed and filed in 23 accordance with [the] rules.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). If properly 24 executed and filed under the rules along with all supporting 25 documentation that may be required, see, e.g., Fed. R. Bankr. P. 26 3001(c), the proof of claim is given an evidentiary presumption of 27 validity. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f); Diamant, 165 F.3d at 1247- 1 The evidentiary presumption created by Rule 3001(f) “operates to 2 shift the burden of going forward but not the burden of proof.” See 3 Litton Loan Servicing, LP v. Garvida (In re Garvida), 347 B.R. 697, 4 706 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (citing Garner v. Shier (In re Garner), 246 5 B.R. 617, 622 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000); Diamant, 165 F.3d at 1248). But 6 this evidentiary presumption is rebuttable. Id. at 706. “One rebuts 7 evidence with counter-evidence.” Id. at 707; see also Am. Express 8 Bank, FSB v. Askenaizer (In re Plourde), 418 B.R. 495, 504 (B.A.P. 1st 9 Cir. 2009) (“[T]o rebut the prima facie evidence a proper proof of 10 claim provides, the objecting party must produce ‘substantial 11 evidence’ in opposition to it.”). 12 “A creditor who files a proof of claim that lacks sufficient 13 support under Rule 3001(c) and (f) does so at its own risk. That 14 proof of claim will lack prima facie validity, so any objection that 15 raises a legal or factual ground to disallow the claim will likely 16 prevail absent an adequate response by the creditor.” Campbell v. 17 Verizon Wireless S–CA (In re Campbell), 336 B.R. 430, 436 (B.A.P. 9th 18 Cir. 2005). 19 Furthermore, “[a] claim that is not regular on its face does not 20 qualify as having been ‘executed and filed in accordance with these 21 rules.’” Litton Loan Servicing, 347 B.R. at 707 n.7 (quoting Fed. R. 22 Bankr. P. 3001(f)). Such a claim lacks prima facie validity. 23 However, “a claim objection that does not actually contest the 24 debtor’s liability or the amount of the debt is not enough to disallow 25 a proof of claim, even if the proof of claim lacks the documentation 26 required by Rule 3001(c).” Campbell, 336 B.R. at 434. In other 27 words, objections based solely on noncompliance with Rule 3001(c) are 1 disagreement as to the liability or amount of the claim. Id. at 434– 2 36. 3 The burden of proof, however, always remains on the party who 4 carries the burden under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Because the 5 burden of proof is “a substantive aspect of a claim,” Raleigh v. Ill. 6 Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 20-21 (2000) (internal quotation marks 7 omitted), it is governed by nonbankruptcy law, usually state law, 8 applicable to a claim, see id. (“[S]tate law governs the substance of 9 claims [in bankruptcy].” (citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 10 57 (1979))); Garvida, 347 B.R. at 705. “That is, the burden of proof 11 is an essential element of the claim itself; one who asserts a claim 12 is entitled to the burden of proof that normally comes with it.” 13 Raleigh, 530 U.S. at 21. 14 Here, the Proof of Claim is not in substantial conformity with 15 Rule 3001. In re Desert Springs Fin., LLC, No. 6:16-BK-14859-MW, 2017 16 WL 1434403, at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2017). There are at least 17 two failures. At the outset, the Bank of New York Mellon must show 18 standing, i.e., a chain of assignments from the originator of the loan 19 to itself. In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 922 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011). It 20 has not done so. A review of the assignments from BYL Bank Group and 21 its successors-in-interest do not allow the court to connect the dots 22 from BYL Bank to the Bank of New York Mellon. 23 Moreover, the Bank of New York Mellon has not fully complied with 24 Rule 3001(c)(2)(A), which requires an “itemized statement of the 25 principal amount and any interest, fees, expenses, or other charges 26 incurred before the petition was filed.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 27 3001(c)(2)(A); In re Baroni, No. AP 13-01071, 2015 WL 6941625, at *6 aff'd 1 2017) (to enjoy the presumption of validity the Proof of Claim must be 2 supported by “(1) a copy of the writing on which it was based, as 3 required by Rule 3001(c)(1); (ii) various statements required by Rule 4 3001(c)(2)(A), (B) and (C); and (iii) a copy of the deed of trust 5 showing that it had been recorded in the Clark County Recorder's 6 office, as required by Rule 3001(d))”). Here, the “itemized statement 7 of the principal amount and any interest...” is missing and, 8 therefore, there is not substantial compliance with Rule 3001 and the 9 presumption does not arise. Though some of this information is 10 reflected on the face pages of the Proof of Claim, no breakdown has 11 been provided. And without the itemized statement, the debtor cannot 12 verify the accuracy of the Form 410A attached to the Proof of Claim. 13 Moreover, the Bank of New York Mellon has not offered other 14 evidence with regard to the validity and amount of its claim, 15 particularly, on the issue of standing. As a result, the bank has not 16 sustained its burden of proof, and the objection will be sustained 17 without prejudice.1 18 B. Confirmation 19 Chapter 13 plan confirmation lies at the heart of adjustment of 20 debts. Whether a particular plan may be confirmed, is governed by the 21 code, rules, and local rules. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322, 1325; Federal Rules 22 of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(a)(9), 3015, 3015.1; LBR 3015-1. The 23 debtor has the burden of proving that the plan complies with all 24 statutory requirements of confirmation. In re Andrews, 49 F.3d 1404, 25 1 Proof of Claims may be amended after the claims bar date provided the claim related back. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9) (disallowing untimely claims); 26 In re Westgate-California Corp., 621 F.2d 983, 984 (9th Cir. 1980). Were the case not being dismissed, undoubtedly the creditor would file an amended 27 claim that related back. Given a $52,783.85 arrearage, absent sale or refinance of the property or a substantial increase in income, plan 1 1407–08 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Barnes, 32 F.3d 405, 407–08 (9th Cir. 2 1994). Since the court has granted leave for the Bank of New York 3 Mellon to amend its claim and presumes it will do so, the court will 4 rule on the motion to confirm the plan. 5 1. Section 1325(a)(6) 6 The proposed plan must be feasible. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6). 7 Feasibility is a “factual determination” as to the plan’s “reasonable 8 likelihood of success.” First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Fantasia (In re 9 Fantasia), 211 B.R. 420, 423 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 1997). The bankruptcy 10 court needs to “be satisfied that the debtor has the present as well 11 as the future financial capacity to comply with the terms of the 12 plan.” Id. 13 This plan is not feasible. That is true for three different 14 reasons. First, if the debtor wishes to attack the Bank of New York 15 Mellon’s deed of trust, it must do so via litigation, and not by plan 16 confirmation. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) (residential mortgages may not 17 be modified Chapter 13 plans); In re de la Salle, 461 B.R. 593, 602 18 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011). 19 Here, the debtor has attempted to do precisely that, i.e., 20 litigate the validity of the deed of trust. Twice. And in each 21 instance, he was found to lack standing. Findings and Recommendations 22 2:12, Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 2:24-cv-1416 (E.D. 23 Cal. February 20, 2025), adopted by Order, ECF No. 31; Mem., Wilkinson 24 v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 25-2061 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.2025), ECF 25 No. 126. As a result, his plan is not feasible.2 26 Second, the debtor has no disposable income. The plan payment is

27 2 That the court sustained the claim objection without prejudice is of no significance. Any substantive attack of the validity of the Bank of New York 1 modest, i.e., $20 per month. But even so, the debtor has net negative 2 disposable income of $1,592.11 per month. Suppl. Schedules I and J, 3 ECF No. 11. 4 Third, curing an arrearage of $52,783.85 is not feasible. There 5 are two scenarios with respect to the validity of the Bank of New York 6 Mellon’s security interest: (1) the debtor’s attack on the security 7 interest will succeed; or the debtor’s attack on the security interest 8 will fail. The debtor’s plan fails to address, sufficiently, the 9 second alternative in light of a negative projected disposable income 10 and, hence, the plan is not feasible. 11 2. Sections 1322(b)(3),(b)(5) and 1325(a)(5) 12 The Bankruptcy Code provides for four, and only four, treatments 13 of secured claims in a Chapter 13 plan: (1) cure and reinstate, 11 14 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(3), (5); (2) customized treatment of the claim by 15 consent of the impacted secured creditor, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(A); 16 (3) surrender of the collateral, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(C); and (4) 17 secured creditor retention of its lien and paid under the terms of the 18 plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B). 19 Not authorized by § 1325(a)(5) is confirmation of a Chapter 13 20 plan that provides a platform from which the debtor may launch attacks 21 on the validity of the secured debt, while enjoying the benefit of the 22 stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, and without servicing the debt. In re de la 23 Salle, 461 B.R. 593, 602 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011). There, the debtor 24 “identity of the entity legally authorized and entitled to enforce the 25 note and deed of trust against debtors' real property and the validity 26 of the deed of trust itself.” In 2005, the debtor signed a 27 $668,000.00 note in favor of Countrywide Home Loans; the note was 1 a notice of default and notice of sale issued. Before the trustee’s 2 sale, the debtor brought a suit in the Eastern District of California 3 “seeking to invalidate the security interest on her property based on 4 various theories.” De La Salle, p. 596. The defendants moved to 5 dismiss her complaint and the U.S. District Court granted the motion. 6 Her appeal to the Ninth Circuit was dismissed for failure of 7 prosecution. 8 Thereafter, the debtors filed a pro se Chapter 13 petition in the 9 Eastern District of California and “mounted a multifaceted attack on 10 [the bank’s] claim.” Id. Schedule D admitted that the bank held a 11 secured claim against their residence; Schedule F listed the bank’s 12 claim as unsecured and disputed, albeit in an unspecified amount. 13 Eventually, the debtors filed a Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan, which 14 failed to provide for the bank’s secured claim at all, but provided 15 that they would: (1) file a Proof of Claim on behalf of the bank and 16 then object to it; and (2) file an adversary proceeding against the 17 bank. The bank objected to confirmation “on the grounds that (1) the 18 plan did not provide for payment of the arrears or ongoing mortgage 19 payments and (2) was not feasible given that debtors' net monthly 20 income of $1081 was insufficient to make the monthly payments to U.S. 21 Bank, which alone were $6,423.77 per month.” De La Salle p. 597. 22 Shifting into high gear, the debtors attacked the bank’s security 23 interest. First, after the bank filed a secured claim for $828,000, 24 the debtors objected to the Proof of Claim, arguing that the creditor 25 lacked standing. Second, the debtors filed an adversary proceeding 26 “declaration that the trust deed was defective and to quiet title 27 against the various defendants.” De La Salle p. 598. Though most 1 to go forward against the bank, believing that “the issues of whether 2 the deed of trust was unperfected and whether U.S. Bank had standing 3 to enforce the note could not have been raised in the district court 4 action.” De La Salle p. 598. The Bankruptcy Court then 5 administratively consolidated the claim objection and the adversary 6 proceeding. 7 The bank moved to dismiss or convert the case, arguing the 8 debtor’s failure to make post-payments on its secured claim and 9 eligibility, 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) (debt limits). The debtors opposed 10 contending: 11 [T]hat U.S. Bank was neither a secured nor unsecured creditor in their case, that it filed a fraudulent proof of 12 claim in their case, and that it committed a fraud on the court by pretending to be a bona fide creditor. They 13 further asserted that it would violate § 1322(b)(1) to make payments to U.S. Bank because such payments would 14 discriminate unfairly against bona fide creditors. In addition, debtors maintained that U.S. Bank failed to prove 15 that it was a party in interest with standing to be heard by the court as there was no evidence that it was the 16 holder of the secured claim on their property. 17 De La Salle p. 599. 18 After further hearings, the bankruptcy court sustained the bank 19 and trustee’s objections to the Second Amended Chapter 13 case “the 20 plan failed to provide for payment of the note securing debtors' 21 residence in violation of § 1325(a)(5),” De La Salle p. 599, and 22 converted the case to Chapter 7. 23 The debtor appealed and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. 24 First, the panel held that the rights and procedures for objection to 25 a Proof of Claim and Chapter 13 plan confirmation are different and 26 “do not authorize debtors to change or reclassify a debt in their 27 Chapter 13 plan which was set forth in a properly filed proof of De La Salle 1 prohibits debtors from modifying a claim secured their principal 2 residence. Id. Third, § 1325(a)(5) requires debtors to provide for 3 payment of the secured claim in an amount equal to the claim. Id. 4 “Accordingly, despite debtors' claim objection and pending adversary 5 proceeding against U.S. Bank, as long as debtors proposed a plan which 6 provided for the bank's proof of claim as filed, confirmation of their 7 plan could have occurred.” 8 De La Salle teaches us that a Chapter 13 plan, which fails to 9 provide for a secured creditor’s claim in one of the manners 10 prescribed by 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(b)(2), 1325(a)(5), may not be 11 confirmed while the debtor objects to the Proof of Claim or prosecutes 12 an adversary contesting the validity of the security interest. 13 The Chapter 13 plan now pending is very similar to that in De La 14 Salle. The Bank of New York Mellon has filed a secured Proof of 15 Claim. And the plan provides for no payment whatsoever to this 16 creditor. Mot. Confirm Plan and Amended Chapter 13 Plan 28:28-3:121, 17 ECF NO. 187. 18 3. Sections 1325(a)(9) 19 Chapter 13 plan confirmation is governed by 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322, 20 1325 and by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) and Local 21 Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1. The debtor has the burden of proving that the 22 plan complies with all statutory requirements of confirmation. In re 23 Andrews, 49 F.3d 1404, 1407–08 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Barnes, 32 F.3d 24 405, 407–08 (9th Cir. 1994). 25 The debtor must prove that he is fully tax compliant. 11 U.S.C. 26 § 1325(a)(9). The requirement applies to the four tax years ending 27 before the filing of the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 1308. He has not 1 2024. 2 For each of these reasons, the court will deny plan confirmation. 3 C. Dismissal and/or Conversion 4 A Chapter 13 case may be dismissed for cause on the motion of the 5 trustee. 6 On request of a party in interest or the United States 7 trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 8 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the 9 estate, for cause, including--(1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors... 10 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) (emphasis added). 11 12 Cause includes the failure to achieve plan confirmation. In re 13 Tran, 2006 WL 6811015 (9th Cir. BAP August 8, 2006) (delay of more 14 than one year). 15 This case is more than 14 months old. Plan confirmation has not 16 been achieved. The trustee’s motion to dismiss has been pending for 17 eight months and has been continued three times to allow the debtor to 18 reorder his affairs. Having denied confirmation, the court finds 19 cause. 20 Here, the only creditor is the Bank of New York Mellon and, 21 therefore, there are no other creditors whose interests need to be 22 protected. The bank is protected by its security interest, Claim No. 23 1, and will be best served by dismissal to allow it to foreclose its 24 deed of trust. 25 / 26 / 27 / 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 The debtor’s objection to the Bank of New York Mellon’s claim is 3 sustained without prejudice and his motion to confirm will be denied. 4 The trustee’s motion to dismiss the case will be granted. 5 ; Dated: November 19, 2025 MSS CL¢- Fredrick E. Clement United States Bankruptcy Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16

1 Instructions to Clerk of Court

2 Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment

3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the document 4 via the BNC or, if checked ____, via the U.S. mail.

6 Debtor(s) Attorney for the Debtor(s) (if any)

7 Bankruptcy Trustee (if appointed in the case) Office of the U.S. Trustee Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse 8 501 I Street, Room 7-500 9 Sacramento, CA 95814 All Creditors and Interested Parties 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27