In Re Rathe

114 B.R. 253, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 997, 1990 WL 61871
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho
DecidedMay 4, 1990
Docket19-00233
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 114 B.R. 253 (In Re Rathe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Rathe, 114 B.R. 253, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 997, 1990 WL 61871 (Idaho 1990).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ALFRED C. HAGAN, Chief Judge.

On November 6, 1989, an order was entered in this Chapter 13 case approving the standing trustee’s final accounting and discharging the trustee. The debtors now move for injunctive relief against Union Federal Savings and Loan Association, which motion raises issues relating to the effect of a Chapter 13 discharge on a secured creditor holding a security interest in a debtor’s principal residence under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and the method of the lenders application of the debtors’ principal and interest payments during the term of the plan.

FACTS

The debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition on December 11, 1985. The debtors submitted an amended Chapter 13 plan on April 7, 1986, which plan was confirmed on April 28, 1986. The confirmed plan provided Rainier Mortgage Company, predecessor in interest to Union Federal Savings and Loan Association and the holder of the security interest in debtors’ principal residence, would be paid regular monthly contract payments of $390.00 during the term of the plan and debtors would continue to make such payments upon completion of the plan. In addition, the amount of default to be cured during the term of the plan was listed as $7,668.41, which amount was to be paid in monthly installments of $213.01.

Rainier Mortgage Company did not object to the treatment of its claim in the Chapter 13 plan. The plan was confirmed on April 28, 1986. On January 30, 1987, Union Federal filed a motion to modify the Section 362 stay, but did not appear at the hearing and consequently the motion was considered denied.

Upon completion of the plan by the debtors Union Federal objected to the Chapter 13 trustee’s final accounting claiming it was owed additional monies and that debtors’ payments were not current at the time the plan was completed. After hearing on the objection, a memorandum of decision was issued on November 2, 1989 concluding the debtors had paid Union Federal in accordance with the plan provisions. Findings were made to the effect the debtors’ plan provided for payment to Union Federal of $14,040.00, representing 13 monthly payments of $390.00 each, the contract monthly payment, and $7,668.41 for arrear-ages. The trustee’s final accounting indicated these amounts had been paid. As the additional claimed fees, costs and late charges were not included in the plan or *255 were determined to be not necessary or reasonable charges, the objection to the final accounting was denied.

Now after completion of the plan and the entry of debtors’ discharge, Union Federal is demanding from the debtors these payments and other payments it claims debtors owe pursuant to the contract which occurred during the term of the execution of the plan. Union Federal claims debtors are not current in their principal and income payments, even though the debtors made these payments during the plan and made up the arrearages, since Union Federal partially diverted these payments to reserve or impound accounts, late charges, professional fees and other charges. The debtors claim Union Federal has not made proper application of debtors’ payments and question Union Federal’s accounting procedures. These issues are thus raised through the debtors’ application for a specific injunction against Union Federal prohibiting it from further collection activities.

DISCUSSION

The debtors’ plan provisions for treatment of the Union Federal claim complied with 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and (5), 1 the plan was completed and the final accounting of the trustee approved. Consequently, the issues must be resolved under the chapter 13 discharge provisions. The applicable discharge provisions are contained in Section 1328(a)(1). 2 Section 1328(a)(1) excepts from discharge the debt owed on a debtor’s principal residence, since the debt extends beyond the term limitations allowed for a chapter 13 plan. A debtor is allowed to cure any arrearage during the term of the plan and is required to maintain the contract payments during the term of the plan. The issues in the instant case arise in the nature of contract charges, other than principal and interest, provision for which is included in the debtors’ contractual obligation to Federal Union and which are included in almost all residential security documents, and the creditor’s application of the debtors’ principal and interest payments to those charges.

PRE-PETITION CHARGES

The terms and conditions of the debtors’ confirmed plan as to any pre-petition claim of Union Federal are binding on Union Federal by the terms of Section 1327(a). 3 Any objection the creditor had to any of the terms of the Chapter 13 plan should have been made prior to confirmation. Thus any claim for monies due prior to confirmation, and any claim for arrear-ages not provided for in the plan are included in the discharge under Section 1328(a)(1). All payments were made by debtors pursuant to the terms of the plan and there was no objection by Union Federal to those terms.

POST PETITION CHARGES

Union Federal argues it is entitled to recover its post-petition charges by diverting plan principal and interest payments to these charges under the combined provisions of Sections 506(b) 4 and 1322(b)(2), *256 claiming it is an oversecured creditor and debtors cannot modify the contract for the purchase of their principal residence. The respective categories of contract charges will be each considered according to these contentions.

As to the claim of Union Federal for post petition fees incurred in conjunction with the motion for stay relief, the post confirmation motion of Union Federal for stay relief was essentially nothing more than a collateral attack on the confirmation of the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan. The motion was apparently abandoned by Union Federal. At a minimum any expenses incurred in the motion to lift stay were unnecessary and should not be charged to the debtor.

The memorandum of decision of November 2, 1989 also decided the issue of post petition attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $440.19, foreclosure fees and costs of $513.96 and an appraisal fee of $150.00 along with late charges of $836.04 as non-allowable charges. The basis of such denial is a finding the fees were not reasonably and necessarily incurred by Union Federal in pursuing collection of its claim during the term of the Chapter 13 plan. Previous findings entered in this case to the effect Union Federal is not entitled to charge debtors account for these items are ratified.

However, the issue of the diversion of the debtors’ principal and interest payments to late charges, and impound, or reserve accounts, deserves further comment and analysis. Union Federal claims entitlement to late charges since the trustee did not make payments on the date the payments were due pursuant to the loan agreement. Union Federal alleges it is entitled to these late charges as part of its claim.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

ANTONIO F POLVOROSA
D. Nevada, 2020
In re Rivera
599 B.R. 335 (D. Arizona, 2019)
Gaff v. Town of Pembroke (In Re Doolan)
447 B.R. 51 (D. New Hampshire, 2011)
Padilla v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Padilla)
389 B.R. 409 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2008)
Jones v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (In Re Jones)
366 B.R. 584 (E.D. Louisiana, 2007)
Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Nosek)
363 B.R. 643 (D. Massachusetts, 2007)
Burrell v. Town of Marion (In Re Burrell)
346 B.R. 561 (First Circuit, 2006)
In Re Tomasevic
275 B.R. 86 (M.D. Florida, 2001)
In Re Guevara
258 B.R. 59 (S.D. Florida, 2001)
Eugene Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corporation
216 F.3d 1333 (First Circuit, 2000)
In Re Wines
239 B.R. 703 (D. New Jersey, 1999)
Smith v. Keycorp Mortgage, Inc.
151 B.R. 870 (N.D. Illinois, 1993)
In Re Roberts
138 B.R. 84 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 B.R. 253, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 997, 1990 WL 61871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rathe-idb-1990.