... [ Section 1329(b)(2) ] means that the modification is effective, i.e. , that the plan is modified, on the date the party requests modification of the plan, unless the court later disapproves it.Germeraad v. Powers , 826 F.3d 962, 969 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). In Germeraad , the trustee filed a motion to modify the debtors' confirmed chapter 13 plan after discovering that their income had increased significantly.

It is well-established that §1329 carries the ability-to-pay standard forward to the end of the plan term so that positive changes in the debtor's financial circumstances may warrant a plan modification to increase distributions to creditors. Germeraad v. Powers, 826 F.3d 962, 971 (7th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases). This conclusion is evidenced by the 1984 amendments to §1329(a) to permit trustees and unsecured creditors (not just debtors) to request plan modification.

The denial of a bankruptcy trustee's motion to modify a Chapter 13 plan is the sort of "final order" that may be appealed as of right under § 158(a)(1). Germeraad v. Powers , 826 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2016). In Germeraad , the Seventh Circuit reasoned that such a denial does not form "part of a larger ‘proceeding’ that will conclude only when some event other than the denial of the motion occurs.

See 638 B.R. at 398 ("[ Section 1329(c) ] is satisfied so long as the modification itself does not expressly alter the plan term to one longer than 60 months, even if the effect of the modification is that a plan may run longer than 60 months.") (citing Germeraad v. Powers, 826 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2016) ). See ECF No. 145.

While it is true that a plan cannot be modified after the "completion of payments," Meza v. Truman (In re Meza ), 467 F.3d 874, 878 (5th Cir. 2006), a motion to modify filed in the final month of a Chapter 13 plan is subject to the same rules as one filed in the very first month. See 11 U.S.C. § 1329(a) ; Germeraad v. Powers , 826 F.3d 962, 969 (7th Cir. 2016) (a motion to modify is timely filed so long as the request was made after the plan was confirmed but before the plan payments have been completed); see alsoIn re Scarver , 555 B.R. 822, 827 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2016).

In the same vein, the Fifth Circuit has noted that modification of Chapter 13 plans often occurs when debtors can no longer afford to make their monthly payments and they are seeking to reduce their payment plan. In re Meza, 467 F.3d at 878 (emphasis added); see also In re Nowlin, 576 F.3d 258, 267 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that, should debtor's financial circumstances improve, a trustee may seek amendment under 11 U.S.C. § 1329 to modify the confirmed plan); Germeraad v. Powers, 826 F.3d 962, 971 (7th Cir. 2016) ("[I]f the debtor loses her job and can no longer afford the payments required under the original plan, then she may request modification to have the plan payments reduced."). For instance, in Barbosa v. Soloman, a Chapter 13 trustee requested modification of a confirmed plan to increase the distribution to unsecured creditors following the sale of the debtor's investment property.

The only Court of Appeals to have considered the issue is the Seventh Circuit, which recently assumed, without deciding, that a bankruptcy court had discretion to allow a debtor to cure a default resulting from a failure to make all payments within the five-year plan period. Germeraad v. Powers, 826 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2016).Likewise, § 1328 directs bankruptcy courts to issue a completion discharge if the debtor has completed "all payments under the plan," 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a), without an express requirement that such payments were made within five years.

Because it is a jurisdictional doctrine, the court must first address Sommerfield's claim that Knasiak's motion is moot. See, e.g., Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71-72 (2013); Germeraad v. Powers, 826 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2016). Mootness occurs "only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party."

While section 1329 contains limitations as to the types of modifications permitted, "it does not contain an explicit standard for determining when a modification that is within those limits should be approved." Germeraad v. Powers, 826 F.3d 962, 971 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Witkowski, 16 F.3d 739, 746 (7th Cir. 1994)). It "does not require any threshold requirement" or any showing of a "change in circumstances" post-confirmation, but rather the decision "is within the bankruptcy court's discretion." Witkowski, 16 F.3d at 748.

Judge Cox noted that the Seventh Circuit itself has implicitly approved of allowing payments beyond the 60th month of a confirmed plan when considering the propriety of a trustee motion to modify. Germeraad v. Powers , 826 F.3d 962, 967–68 (7th Cir. 2016) (payments after 60 months could be permitted "to cure the defaults and consummate the plan." (citing Hon. W. Homer Drake, Jr., et al ., Chapter 13 Practice and Procedure , § 11:15 at 1131 (2d ed. 2015))).