Tammy Dixon Martin

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedNovember 14, 2022
Docket22-30148
StatusUnknown

This text of Tammy Dixon Martin (Tammy Dixon Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tammy Dixon Martin, (Tex. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATED BANKRUPTCY COURT November 14, 2022 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

IN RE: § § CASE NO: 22-30148 TAMMY DIXON MARTIN, § § Debtor. § § § CHAPTER 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the Amended Chapter 13 Plan filed by the debtor, Tammy Dixon Martin [hereinafter ‘Martin’] (ECF No. 78) and the Objection to Plan Confirmation filed by Ovation Services LLC as agent for FGMS Holdings LLC [hereinafter “Ovation”] (ECF No. 81) for the following reasons the objection is overruled, and the Chapter 13 Plan will be confirmed by separate order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ovation has filed a Proof of Claim in this case (Claim 11) in the amount of $15,358.32. The claim arises out of a Texas Property Tax Repayment Agreement (Claim 11-1, Part 2). The claim indicates that FGMS Holdings advanced the sum of $18,407.27, at an annual interest rate of 12% for the payment of tax liens against the debtor’s homestead. The repayment agreement contains a Collection Cost and Attorney’s Fee payment paragraph (Paragraph 13)1 and a Security paragraph (Paragraph 17). The payment terms are stated as $370.89 per month on the 15th day of each month beginning January 15, 2019. No final payment date is stated.

The debtor in this case has unfortunately been “dragged” into a dispute about recent form changes to the Mandatory Form Chapter 13 Plan [hereinafter the Chapter 13 Plan] drafted by and adopted by all the Judges of the Southern District of Texas and how it possibly affects repayments to property tax lenders such as Ovation.2 The objection as filed does not contain any factual

1 The “reasonable and necessary attorney fees” in this paragraph are in the Court’s opinion the primary reason for Ovations objection to confirmation. Ovation does not want any oversight of its post-petition and pre-discharge attorney fees in Chapter 13 case by the Bankruptcy Court. This Court feels strongly that it should monitor and approve these attorney fees. The form Chapter 13 Plan language as adopted by the Southern District of Texas Judges is procedural process put in place for the monitoring and approving of these attorney fees. While other costs and expenses such as forced placed insurance can also be the subject of the form Chapter 13 Plan language these costs are typically uncontroversial and routinely approved. 2 While the objection is non-specific as to the form Chapter 13 Plan language that is objectionable to Ovation, Paragraph 8(d) of the form Chapter 13 Plan states as follows: D. This subparagraph D applies to any claim that is secured in whole or in part by a Tax Lien held by a transferee (as defined in Section 32.06 of the Texas Tax Code), or its assigns (collectively, a “Transferee”). 1 / 30 allegations regarding this debtor but raises objections to the revised Chapter 13 Plan language.3 The provisions added to the form Chapter 13 Plan seek to achieve a fresh start for debtors who complete their Chapter 13 Plan by avoiding any potential abusive lending practices by these tax lenders. A preliminary hearing was held on November 2, 2022, and the Court adopts by reference the findings in the order entered from that hearing (ECF No. 93).4

As described herein and in the objection filed, Ovation raises multiple grounds as to why the revisions to the Chapter 13 Plan are abusive to tax lenders and impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Court believes that the objection, in part, fails to state any objection at all. The form Chapter 13 Plan does not dispute that Ovation has a valid secured claim and lien or that it invalidates, in any way, that lien.5 The Chapter 13 Plan language confirms that Ovation shall be fully paid pre- discharge, that its lien is satisfied by full payment under the plan and that a debtor who gets a

(i) Paragraph 8 governs the repayment of the Transferee’s claim. (ii) The procedures set forth in FED. R. BANKR. P. 3002.1 and in the Chapter 13 Trustee Procedures for Administration of Claims Secured by Real Property apply to all claims of a Transferee, regardless of: a. Whether the Transferee holds a security interest, lien or other encumbrance to secure payment of its claim; or b. The terms of repayment set forth in this Plan. (iii) Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, any amounts due under a FED. R. BANKR. P. 3002.1(c) Notice shall be paid after payment of all other secured and priority claims, but before payment of general unsecured claims. (iv) Any amounts sought in a Transferee’s FED. R. BANKR. P. 3002.1 notice must be paid in accordance with the Chapter 13 Trustee Procedures for Administration of Claims Secured by Real Property. (v) No post-petition attorney’s fees, expenses or other reimbursements incurred before the completion of all payments under this Plan may be enforced by any Transferee unless the attorney’s fees, expenses or other reimbursements are authorized by a Court order or the Chapter 13 Trustee Procedures for Administration of Claims Secured by Real Property. (vi) Paragraphs 12 and 25 of this Plan apply to claims secured by a Tax Lien; provided, after the completion of all payments under this Plan, the Transferee will retain its lien, but only if the Tax Lien was treated by a “Cure” under this Plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(3) or § 1322(b)(5). In that event, the Tax Lien will secure only (i) payments first payable after the completion of all payments under this Plan; and (ii) charges, fees and advances first accruing after the completion of all payments under this Plan. Attorney’s fees, inspection fees and other charges accrue on the date that the services were rendered. The obligation to pay taxes accrues on the date that the taxes were last due without penalty under applicable non-bankruptcy law. Insurance premiums accrue on the date on which the premium was due under applicable non-bankruptcy law. 3 The Southern District of Texas mandates the use of a form Chapter 13 Plan, which is available on the Southern District of Texas website. The most recent [and at controversy here] Uniform Plan and Motion for Valuation of Collateral was effective on 9/15/2022. The plan is regularly updated, therefore a copy of the plan to which Ovation objects is attached as “Exhibit A.” 4 The record in this case supports that the Court may rule on confirmation and the outstanding objection without an evidentiary hearing. The Trustee has recommended confirmation of this case subject to the outstanding creditor objection. The Court admits Exhibits 87-1, 87-2, 87-3, 87-4, 90, 91 and 92 for the purpose of making a record on the Court’s ruling on confirmation and the Objection to Confirmation. 5 Because Ovation’s claim is an allowed secured claim for purposes of 11 USC § 1325(a)(5), the Plan must conform with one of the subsections of 11 USC § 1325(a)(5). 2 / 30 Chapter 13 Discharge receives a fresh start owing Ovation nothing. What the form Chapter 13 Plan does do [and intentionally intends to do] is to provide Bankruptcy Court oversight for the timely approval of any post-petition attorneys fee, costs, or other assessments made by the tax lender post-petition but pre-discharge against the debtor.6 This apparently is the basis for Ovation’s objection as it does not like this oversight and/or wishes not to comply with the procedural safeguards of the form Chapter 13 Plan, as they appear to consider the same to be onerous.

Importantly, however, for Ovation and the tax lenders like it, the form plan does ensure that their entire claim, including any valid post-petition attorney fee, costs or other assessments7 are fully paid pre-discharge.

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

Related

In Re Lund
187 B.R. 245 (N.D. Illinois, 1995)
In Re Jack Kline Co., Inc.
440 B.R. 712 (S.D. Texas, 2010)
In re Shree Mahalaxmi, Inc.
522 B.R. 899 (W.D. Texas, 2014)
In re Merkle
575 B.R. 704 (W.D. Texas, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tammy Dixon Martin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tammy-dixon-martin-txsb-2022.