In Re Sims

288 B.R. 264, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 62
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedJanuary 28, 2003
Docket19-30266
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 288 B.R. 264 (In Re Sims) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Sims, 288 B.R. 264, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 62 (Ala. 2003).

Opinion

Memorandum Decision

WILLIAM R. SAWYER, Chief Judge.

I. Introduction

In this Chapter 13 case the Debtors seek to modify their Chapter 13 Plan by adding certain indebtedness which were incurred after the date of the petition. (Doc. 20). The Court held a hearing on the application on December 4, 2002, at the United States Bankruptcy Court, Dothan, Alabama. Curtis C. Reding, Trustee, and Collier H. Espy, Jr., Attorney for the Debtors, were present at the hearing. Prior to the hearing, counsel for the debtors served a copy of the Application together with the order setting hearing upon all creditors. (Doc. 24). No creditors appeared at the December 4, 2002 hearing, and no objections to the Application have been filed with the Court.

At the hearing, the Court orally granted the Debtors’ Application and requested that counsel for the Debtors prepare a proposed order for the Court. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court declines to use the order submitted by counsel and holds that post-petition creditors are not required to file proofs of claim and participate in the Chapter 13 plan. 2 In the view of the undersigned, the proposed order *266 exceeds that which may be accomplished by a Chapter 13 plan as it relates to indebtedness which arises after the date of the petition in bankruptcy. The Court writes to explain its rationale.

II. Chapter 13 Generally

In general terms, Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a framework for wage earners to reorganize their affairs. 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). With only the narrow exception provided by Section 1305, which will be discussed in some detail below, the only debts included in the reorganization are those in existence as of the time the petition in bankruptcy is filed. See 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a).

To be eligible for relief under Chapter 13, a debtor must meet the requirements of Section 109(e) and file a plan which proposes a payment structure for adjusting his debts either by composition or extension over a period of time not to exceed five years. 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(e), 1321, 1322. Pursuant to Section 1322, the plan must provide for full payment of certain priority claims and may provide for less than 100% payment on other classes of claims. 11 U.S.C. § 1322. Following confirmation, the rights of the creditors are fixed as the plan provides and “the debtor essentially emerges with the contracts between himself and his creditors having been rewritten as evidenced by his proposed plan and confirmation order.” In re Benson, 116 B.R. 606, 608 (Bankr. SJD.Ohio, 1990); see 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a). At the completion of the plan, all debts “provided for” by the plan or “disallowed” are discharged. 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).

III. Conclusions of Law

The Debtors have moved to modify their confirmed Chapter 13 plan to include certain post-petition medical debts. (Doc. 20). Their plan proposes to pay all unsecured claims a pro rata amount equal to 2.66% of the claim. Debtors contend that these post petition medical debts are of the sort contemplated by Section 1305, are unexpected expenses, and that these creditors bear the burden of filing claims and participating in the distribution under the plan. (Doc. 20). See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1305(a)(2); 1322(b)(6). A careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code proves otherwise.

A. Post-Petition Medical Debts are Contemplated by Section 1305(a)

Section 1305(a) provides for the filing and allowance of two types of post-petition claims and reads as follows:

(a) A proof of claim may be filed by any entity that holds a claim against the debtor—
(1) for taxes that become payable to a governmental unit while the case is pending; or
(2) that is a consumer debt, that arises after the date of the order for relief under this chapter, and that is for property or services necessary for the debtor’s performance under the plan.

11 U.S.C. § 1305(a). Section 1305(c) further provides that a claim filed under Section (a)(2) will be disallowed “if the holder of such claim knew or should have known that prior approval by the trustee of the debtor’s incurring the obligation was practicable and was not obtained.” 11 U.S.C. § 1305(c).

The legislative history cites two examples of the type of post-petition expenses for which Section 1305(a)(2) was enacted: “auto repairs in order that the debtor will be able to get to work, or *267 medical bills.” H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 427-28 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5963, 6383. Moreover, courts regularly have found that medical expenses are covered by Section (a)(2). See e.g., In re Goodman, 136 B.R. 167, 170 (Bankr.W.D.Tenn., 1992); In re Trentham, 145 B.R. 564, 569 n. 7 (Bankr. E.D.Tenn.1992); In re Pritchett, 55 B.R. 557, 559 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1985). This section is meant to provide for debts which, though not expected, may be anticipated over the life of the plan. See In re Trent-ham, 145 B.R. at 569. Further, the debts incurred must be “necessary for the debt- or’s performance under the plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a) (emphasis added).

The Court finds that the medical bills at issue in the instant case are within the purview of Section 1305(a). The record shows that the expenses were incurred during the pendency of the case for necessary medical services provided to Mrs. Sims. 3 The treatment was essential to Mrs. Sims’ ability to perform under the plan. Further, the Court finds that the medical treatment provided was immediately necessary and prior approval of the Trustee was not practicable. See 11 U.S.C. § 1305(c); In re Trentham, 145 B.R. at 569 n. 7.

B. Post-Petition Creditors Cannot be Forced into Existing Chapter 13 Plan

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

Related

Hurst v. Curtis
E.D. Tennessee, 2022
Mike Terance Tracy
D. Idaho, 2021
In re Ambrosius
536 B.R. 814 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2015)
In Re Hight
426 B.R. 258 (W.D. Michigan, 2010)
In Re Jones
381 B.R. 555 (M.D. Florida, 2007)
In Re Woods
316 B.R. 522 (N.D. Illinois, 2004)
In Re Perkins
304 B.R. 477 (N.D. Alabama, 2004)
Baxter v. Watson (In Re Watson)
292 B.R. 441 (S.D. Georgia, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 B.R. 264, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sims-almb-2003.