McIntosh v. LaBarge (In re McIntosh)

Summarized by Brendan Gage , Goulston & Storrs PC
12 years 8 months ago

Citation:

No. 12-6070 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. June 10, 2013)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

8th Circuit BAP AFFIRMED the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court affirming Debtor's Second Amended Plan (and rejecting the Debtor's First Amended Plan).

Procedural context:

Bankruptcy Court rejected Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan and First Amended Plan, but debtor could not appeal the order because it was interlocutory. Pursuant to local procedure, the Debtor filed a Second Amended Plan, without the "rejected" provisions set out in the First Amended Plan, and objected to its own Second Amended Plan. The Bankruptcy Court Order confirming the Second Amended Plan was not interlocutory and Debtor appealed the order confirming the Second Amended Plan, which the BAP treated as an appeal of both the confirmation and the Bankruptcy Court's rejection of the First Amended Plan.

Facts:

The debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan by using a model form required by her district. She then added additional language in paragraph 10, a blank paragraph labeled “Other.” The trustee and a secured creditor objected, asserting that the added language was ambiguous, contradictory to the model form, and inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. After the debtor filed a first amended plan, the parties made essentially the same objections. The Bankruptcy Court issued an interlocutory order sustaining the objections to the debtor’s plan based on the language added to paragraph 10. In order to get an appeal, the Debtor then filed a Second Amended Plan without the objectionable language and filed an objection to such Plan. The order confirming the Second Amended Plan was not interlocutory and the Debtor appealed. The BAP held that a court is required to accept or reject a plan as a whole and the BAP could not review the debtor’s proposed provisions presented in the appeal in isolation from the other provisions that were rejected by the BC. Applying de novo review, the BAP also concluded that the BC correctly rejected some of the debtor’s proposed plan provisions. The debtor’s proposed provisions made the plan ambiguous and conflicted with other preprinted provisions on the debtor’s model plan form.

Judge(s):

Kressel, Saladino and Shodeen, Bankruptcy Judges.

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!