Now Updating
In re: EMAD AZIZ MASOUD ALFAHEL and LINA NADIM FAHEL

Summarizing by Shane Ramsey

In re: EMAD AZIZ MASOUD ALFAHEL and LINA NADIM FAHEL

Summarizing by Bradley Pearce

Mattson v. Howe (In re Mattson)

Citation:
Mattson v. Howe (In re Mattson), Ch. 13 Case No. 10-50455, BAP No. WW-11-1478-JuHKi (9th Cir. BAP Apr. 5, 2012)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
Subject to the good faith requirements of Section 1329, and the Court's discretion, a debtor may modify his or her plan to reduce the term below the applicable commitment period required for an original plan if such modification is justified by a post-confirmation change in the debtor's circumstances. The B.A.P. panel found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Debtors' proposed modification to shorten their plan because the Debtors presented no evidence that their circumstances warranted shortening the term of the plan.
Procedural context:
Bankruptcy court granted Debtors' motion to increase their payments under their Chapter 13 plan, but denied their request to shorten the plan term from five years to three years. Debtors appealed.
Facts:
Above-median Debtors moved to modify their confirmed Chapter 13 plan due to a post-confirmation increase in their income. The Debtors proposed to increase plan payments and shorten the term of their plan from five years to three years. There was no evidence that the Debtors' circumstances warranted shortening the term of the plan.
Judge(s):
Lynch; Jury; Hollowell; and Kirscher

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3527 in the system

3410 Summarized

9 Being Processed