In re Beasley

5 Citing cases

  1. Rogers v. E. Sav. Bank (In re Rogers)

    489 B.R. 327 (D. Conn. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    Although BAPCPA made significant modifications to the Bankruptcy Code for the purpose of curbing certain perceived abuses, it neither explicitly barred the filing of a Chapter 13 petition and plan following a Chapter 7 discharge nor did it presumptively foreclose a debtor in such a case from modifying a claim under section 1322(b)(2). Accord Sadowski, 473 B.R. at 17 & n. 7 (acknowledging that “debtors are not precluded from filing a Chapter 13 plan after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge” and that BAPCPA “made no changes to § 1322(b)(2)”); but see In re Beasley, No. 11–40642–JJR13, 2011 WL 4498942, at *3–4 n. 7 (Bankr.N.D.Ala. Sept. 27, 2011) (concluding in dicta that the amendments enacted by BAPCPA prohibit filing a no-discharge Chapter 13 case). There also can be no dispute that a discharge may not enter in a subsequent Chapter 13 case that falls within the explicit purview of section 1328(f), or that any Chapter 13 plan (successive or otherwise) must comply with, among other provisions, the discretionary “good faith” requirements of section 1325(a)(3) and (7) in order to be confirmed.

  2. In re Vasquez

    No. 23-12045-BFK (Bankr. E.D. Va. Jul. 9, 2024)

    This is not a situation, for example, where the Debtors are ineligible for Chapter 13 discharges; all three Debtors are eligible for Chapter 13 discharges. See In re Beasley, 2011 WL 4498942, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 20111) ("A financial fresh start in this case is beyond the Debtors' reach; they can only bide their time and enjoy temporary protection from creditors under chapter 13 until the 4-year chapter 7 waiting period has expired-a luxury Congress never intended when it added § 1328(f)(1) to the Code"); In re Gaddis, 2011 WL 11709211, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. June 20, 2011) ("with the enactment of BAPCPA, and specifically § 1328(f)(1), most chapter 13 debtors are now prohibited from seeking relief under chapter 13 until the 4-year bar from discharge required by § 1328(f)(1) is satisfied; especially debtors who have incurred substantial post-chapter 7 debts and whose principal purpose for seeking chapter 13 relief is not to cure mortgage arrears that were left over after a recently granted chapter 7 discharge.") In fact, the Fourth Circuit specifically rejected the idea in Bateman that ine

  3. In re Devaughan

    No. 23-10150-BPC (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Jul. 5, 2023)

    As a preliminary distinction, finding bad faith is not necessary to determine that a debtor lacked good faith in filing the plan or petition. In re Beasley, No. 11-40642-JJR13, 2011 WL 4498942, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2011) ("This Court agrees with those courts finding that a case not filed 'in good faith' is different from finding the case was filed 'in bad faith.'").

  4. In re Roby

    649 B.R. 583 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    At confirmation, a debtor has the burden of proof to satisfy each element necessary for confirmation and this includes establishing that the petition was filed in good faith. In re Beasley , No. 11-40642-JJR13, 2011 WL 4498942, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2011) (finding that the case was not filed in good faith when discharge was unattainable, and debtors could only "bide their time and enjoy temporary protection from creditors under [C]hapter 13"). In sum, the Court is tasked with confirming a debtor's intentions are sincere and not sinister.

  5. In re Powers

    554 B.R. 41 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 13 times
    Applying totality of circumstances tests for review under section 1325 and analysis of motivation and purpose for review under section 1325

    “[A] finding that a case is not filed in ‘in good faith’ is different from finding the case was filed ‘in bad faith.’ ” In re Beasley, No. 11–40642, 2011 WL 4498942, at *2, 2011 Bankr.LEXIS 3703, at *6 (Bankr.N.D.Ala. Sept. 27, 2011) (citing In re Lavilla, 425 B.R. 572 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2010) (discussing the distinction between a finding of ‘bad faith’ and a finding of ‘not in good faith,’ and also discussing the burden of proof for confirmation)). As the court stated in Lavilla, “[t]he court can determine that a Chapter 13 petition is not filed in ‘good faith’ without having to find that the debtor is acting in ‘bad faith’ (dishonesty of belief or purpose).”