In Re Williams

3 B.R. 728, 1 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 879, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5287, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 237
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedApril 15, 1980
Docket19-05760
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 3 B.R. 728 (In Re Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Williams, 3 B.R. 728, 1 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 879, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5287, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 237 (Ill. 1980).

Opinion

ORDER

LAWRENCE FISHER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter coming on for hearing on confirmation, upon Notice to Debtors and to creditors, and the Debtors appearing thereat represented by an attorney, and the Trustee also appearing, and no creditor having appeared, and upon the Application of Debtors for the entry of an Order of Confirmation, and

The Court having examined the Chapter 13 Petition, Plan and Chapter 13 Statement, including a Monthly Family Budget, Schedule of Debts, Schedule of Property and Statement of Exemption Election and *729 Claim, and having heard the testimony of Debtors and the argument of their attorney, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

The Court Finds:

1. Section 1324 of title 11 of the United States Code provides as follows:

“After notice, the court shall hold a hearing on the confirmation of the plan. A party in interest may object to the confirmation of the plan.”

2. Section 1325 of title 11 of the United States Code provides as follows:

“(a) The court shall confirm a plan if—
(1) the plan complies with the provisions of this chapter and with other applicable provisions of this title;
(2) any fee, charge, or amount required under chapter 123 of title 28, or by the plan, to be paid before confirmation, has been paid;
(3) the plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law;
(4) the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than the amount that would be paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor were liquidated under chapter 7 of this title on such date;
(5) with respect to each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan—
(A)the holder of such claim has accepted the plan;
(B)(i) the plan provides that the holder of such claim retain the lien securing such claim; and
(ii) the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less that the allowed amount of such claim; or
(C) the debtor surrenders the property securing such claim to such holder; and
(6)the debtor will be able to make all payments under the plan and to comply with the plan.
(b) After confirmation of a plan, the court may order any entity from whom the debtor receives income to pay all or any part of such income to the trustee.”

3. Rule 13-213 of the Chapter XIII Rules provides in pertinent part as follows:

“ . . . . If no objection is timely filed the court may find, without taking proof, that the debtor has not committed any act or failed to perform any duty which would be a bar to the discharge of a bankrupt and that the plan has been proposed and its acceptance procured in good faith and not by any means, promises, or acts forbidden by law. . . . ”

4. Debtors’ Petition and Plan, which includes by reference Debtors’ Schedule of Property and Debtors’ Schedule of Debts, both a part of the Chapter 13 Statement, has been signed and verified by Debtors as follows:

“Each of the undersigned certifies under penalties of perjury that he has read the foregoing petition, plan and the attached Chapter 13 statement consisting of 8 pages and that the matters therein stated and the answers given are true and complete to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.”

Debtors’ Schedule of Property provides in pertinent part as follows:

“List all real estate and other property owned by you or your spouse at date of filing of original petition herein.
Description of real property — address 4 bedrm. residence located at 9601 S. Parnell, Chicago, IL
Present market value without deduction for mortgage or security interest $60,000.00
The total amount of debt secured by a lien on this property $18,000.00
The net value of the property in excess of liens $42,000.00 . . . .”

*730 Debtors’ Schedule of Debts provides in pertinent part as follows:

“Name, address .... Amount due or .... claimed Brief description of security, by creditor if any
Mortgage Associates, Inc. $18,000.00 4 bedrm. brick residence . .. Drawer 942 Milwaukee, WI 53278

6.Debtors’ Statement of Claimed Exemption provides in pertinent part as follows:

“Real Estate ....
Property Value Amt. of Mtge.(s) .... Value claimed exempt
4 bedrm. residence $60,000.00 $18,000.00 Hus. — 7500.00
located at 9601 S. Wife — 7500.00 .. .. ”
Parnell, Chicago, IL

7. All other assets listed on Debtors’ Schedule of Property are subject to lien or claimed exempt in amounts in excess of the stated value and are therefore property of the estate which is not subject to administration and which, if the estate of the Debtors were liquidated under Chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code, could not be distributed as payment on allowed unsecured claims.

If the estate of the Debtors were liquidated under Chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code, the real estate above described would constitute the entire estate administered and available for distribution to pay allowed unsecured claims. The value thereof, as indicated in the Debtors’ Schedule of Property, is $60,000.00, as of March 12, 1980, which date is considered by the Court to be the effective date of the Plan for purposes of considering the application and effect of Section 1325(a)(4).

8. The potential allowed unsecured claims which would receive distribution and payment if the estate of the Debtors were liquidated under Chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code are as follows:

“Nelson Bros. $ 658.00
Goldblatt Bros. $1008.00
Montgomery Ward & Co. $1132.00
Bank Leumi $3587.00

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

Related

In Re Dow Corning Corp.
237 B.R. 380 (E.D. Michigan, 1999)
Matter of Rivera
116 B.R. 17 (D. Puerto Rico, 1990)
In Re Girdaukas
92 B.R. 373 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1988)
Matter of Barth
83 B.R. 204 (D. Connecticut, 1988)
In Re Schenk
67 B.R. 137 (D. Montana, 1986)
In Re Cash
51 B.R. 927 (N.D. Alabama, 1985)
Hardy v. Cinco Federal Credit Union
755 F.2d 67 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Matter of Fi-Hi Pizza, Inc.
40 B.R. 258 (D. Massachusetts, 1984)
In Re Martin
17 B.R. 924 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)
In Re Nite Lite Inns
17 B.R. 367 (S.D. California, 1982)
In Re Appropriate Interest Rate on Secured Claims
16 B.R. 666 (D. New Jersey, 1981)
In Re Marx
11 B.R. 819 (S.D. Ohio, 1981)
Matter of Wojick
10 B.R. 328 (D. Connecticut, 1981)
In Re Gale
8 B.R. 960 (D. Maryland, 1981)
In Re Perskin
9 B.R. 626 (N.D. Texas, 1981)
In Re Roberts
8 B.R. 155 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Martin v. Bowen
51 N.J. Eq. 452 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 B.R. 728, 1 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 879, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5287, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-williams-ilnb-1980.