See, e.g. , Matter of Chappell, 984 F.2d 775, 781 (7th Cir. 1993) (determining, in the context of concluding that second mortgage debt not exempted from discharge by operation of § 1328(a)(1), that debtor did not avail himself § 1322(b)(5) because debtor proposed accelerating the second mortgage and paying it in full during the five years in which the plan was in effect, suggesting that § 1322(b)(5) is only applicable where the full amount of the secured claim is not paid during the case); In re Rogers , 494 B.R. 664, 669 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013) ("§ 1322(b)(5) does not except the debt forming the basis of [creditor]'s claim from discharge because the debtors' confirmed plan did not contain a provision to cure prepetition arrears or default."); Citizens Bank v. Cramer (In re Cramer) , 477 B.R. 736, 739–740 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012) (concluding postconfirmation deficiency judgment on travel trailer was dischargeable where plan provided for debtors to maintain on-going payments directly but did not make specific reference to or provide for cure under § 1322(b)(5) ); In re Starkey , No. 15-00659, 2016 WL 3034738, at *1–2 (Bankr. D.D.C. May 18, 2016) (overruling confirmation objection and concluding claim being paid directly in its entirety by debtor leaves claim unaffected for purposes of § 1322(b)(2) because the creditor's claim is unaltered); In re Kent , No. BR 09-35124-TMB13, 2016 WL 9488860, at *4 (Bankr. D. Or. Jan. 22, 2016) (holding that "for a claim under § 1322(b)(5), the plan must cure a default.
, In re Rogers, 494 B.R. 664, 669 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013) ("§ 1322(b)(5) does not except the debt forming the basis of [creditor]'s claim from discharge because the debtors' confirmed plan did not contain a provision to cure prepetition arrears or default."); Citizens Bank v. Cramer (In re Cramer), 477 B.R. 736, 739-740 (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. 2012) (debtors' plan provided for direct payment on secured claim; because plan did not make specific reference to § 1322(b)(5), section 1328(a)(1) did not apply); but see Suncoast Credit Union v. Dukes (In re Dukes), 2015 WL 3856335, at *5 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2015, Jun. 19, 2015) ("[W]hen [a] claim is 'long term debt' and the plan proposes for the debtor to maintain payments, the claim is provided for under § 1322(b)(5) and excepted from discharge under § 1328(a)(1).
In other words, the Cramer court held that the exception to discharge under § 1328(a)(1) for debts provided for under §1322(b)(5) only applies if the plan proposes to cure a default on the obligation. 477 B.R. 736 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012). But other courts have reached the opposite conclusion.
In other words, the Cramer court held that the exception to discharge under § 1328(a)(1) for debts provided for under § 1322(b)(5) only applies if the plan proposes to cure a default on the obligation. 477 B.R. 736 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.2012).But other courts have reached the opposite conclusion.