Although not exactly analogous to the case at bar, prior cases both within and without the circuit have addressed the issue of attorneys' fee-only or fee-centric cases and are informative on this case. Generally across those cases, fee-only and fee-centric plans have been confirmed when the respective debtor was attempting to achieve some other, legitimate chapter 13 purpose as well. See, e.g., Sikes v. Crager (In re Crager), 691 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 2012); In re Dunson, 550 B.R. 537 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2016); In re Wark, 542 B.R. 522 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2015) (collecting cases). Although this case was not filed as a chapter 13 for the sole purpose of being able to pay attorneys' fees over time, based on the Plan, it will take 44 months to pay just Debtor's attorneys' fees before even paying the nondischargeable domestic support obligation claim of Ms. Huether, the only other claim to receive payment under the Plan. Of the estimated $189,000 in unsecured claims, the vast majority are claims arising out of a divorce settlement between Debtor and Ms. Huether. The parties agree that these debts are not domestic support obligations, but because they arise from or are referenced in a divorce settlement, these debts to Ms. Huether are under § 523(a)(15).
On the contrary, the record indicates that the Debtor had a valid need for financial relief as of the petition date. See In re Dunson, 550 B.R. 537, 549 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2016)(The debtor's petition and plan were filed in good faith under §1325(a), where it was clear that she needed financial relief.). In this case, the Debtor testified at trial that he filed the Chapter 13 petition for the primary purposes of saving his home and paying his federal income tax debt.
See, e.g., In re Dunson, 550 B.R. 537, 542 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2016); see also In re Lancaster, 280 B.R. 468, 474 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2002) (noting that the Eighth Circuit has used the same standard for bad faith under § 1307(c) and § 1325(a)(3)).
Id. at 578. In re Dunson, 550 B.R. 537 (Bankr. D. Kan. May 3, 2016); In re Doucet, No. 15-21531, 2016 WL 2603072 (Bankr. D. Kan. May 3, 2016); and In re Dugan and Dresch, 549 B.R. 790 (Bankr. D. Kan. May 3, 2016). Admittedly, the Moores' case seems less dire than some of the other cases.