In re Fowler

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Huddle

    Case No. 06-11076-SSM (Bankr. E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2007)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that purchase money status was lost completely when loan was refinanced to pay off original purchase money loan and also to purchase a motorcycle

    Rather, the creditor is simply seeking a better treatment of its claim than the treatment provided by the plan. In this respect, the present case is similar to In re Fowler, 1998 WL 748643 (Bankr. E.D. Va., Oct. 27, 1997). In that case a chapter 13 plan was confirmed stating that an "[a]utomobile note with American Investment Bank will be paid outside plan by co-signor."

  2. In re Griffiths

    Case No. 06-50256-A (Bankr. E.D. Va. May. 3, 2007)

    The creditor bears the burden to object to any treatment in a plan that it finds objectionable or even ambiguous, or else "assume the risk that [it] will be bound by undesirable terms if [it] fail[s] to object to such a plan." In re Fowler, No. 96-15386, 1997 Bankr. Lexis 2332, *15 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 1997) (emphasis added). This preclusive effect of the confirmed plan even extends to proposed modifications to a plan under ยง 1329 on issues that could have been addressed prior to confirmation.

  3. In re Koenig

    Bankruptcy No. 00-11188/W, Chapter 13 (Bankr. D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2001)

    Debtor has argued that SRP is barred from seeking relief from the automatic stay now, since SRP did not object to its treatment in the plan and the plan was confirmed ten months ago. In support of this argument, Debtor cites two cases: In re Wallace, 259 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001) and In re Fowler, 1998 WL 748648 (Bankr. E.D. Va.). However, both these cases stand for the proposition that creditors who are subject to plans whereby third parties are to make payments on the claims outside of the plan are barred from seeking claims for any deficiencies against the debtors.

  4. In re Conley

    Case No. 97-16705-SSM, Chapter 13 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Sep. 28, 2000)   Cited 7 times

    The specific question of whether a post-confirmation plan modification may provide for the surrender of collateral and the reclassification of any deficiency as an unsecured claim has divided the courts. See In re Fowler, No. 96-15386, 1998 WL 748643 (Bankr.E.D.Va., Oct. 27, 1997) (collecting cases). In particular, some courts read Section 1329 broadly in light of chapter 13's rehabilitative goals so as to permit such modification, while others hold that res judicata prohibits modifications that recharacterize a previously allowed secured claim.