In re Seeburger, 392 B.R. 735, 743 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2008). In Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195 (W.D.Tex.2011), the District Court, utilizing a similar totality of the circumstances test to determine whether chapter 13 debtors proposed a plan in good faith, pursuant to 1325(a)(3), reversed the bankruptcy court's confirmation of a chapter 13 plan where the debtors sought to retain a house with no equity at an expense in excess of the IRS guidelines while paying the IRS a distribution of only 1%. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan without considering the reasonableness of the debtors' expenditures under section 1325(b)(3), which incorporates the IRS guidelines via section 707(b)(2)(A)-(B). Id. at 197–98.
Further, nothing in the record indicates that the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan, and overruled Hammett's objections, based on a legal conclusion rather than the facts gleaned from the evidence in the record. Cf Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195, 199 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 2011) (applying a de novo standard of review because the “Bankruptcy Court overruled the good faith objection based on a legal conclusion rather than on facts”). Accordingly, “the fair import” of the Bankruptcy Court's analysis
Other decisions finding it necessary to reverse and remand contained substantial defects in the Chapter 13 plans that required rehearing. See, e.g., Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195, 202 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (reversing and remanding to the bankruptcy court to amend the Chapter 13 plan, taking into consideration the Trustee's proper bad faith objection); see also In re Sanders, 403 B.R. 435, 444–45 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (reversing and remanding to the bankruptcy court to amend the classification of secured and unsecured claims in the Chapter 13 plan); In re Dale, No. H-07-32451, 2008 WL 4287058, *4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2008) (reversing and remanding to the bankruptcy court to recalculate amount of secured debt in Chapter 13 plan).This Court finds that no substantial defects exist or have even been addressed on appeal regarding the Chapter 13 Plan Order that merit remanding the case.
The applicable standard of review for the Confirmation Order is de novo. See Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195, 199 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (stating the standard of review for confirmation orders is de novo); see also U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Vertullo (In re Vertullo), 610 B.R. 399, 403 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2020) ; Hildebrand v. Thomas (In re Thomas), 395 B.R. 914, 917 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008). The Order Denying Dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The chapter 13 debtor has the burden of meeting all the confirmations requirements under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325. Viegelahn v. Essex , 452 B.R. 195, 198 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (citing Suggs v. Stanley (In re Stanley) , 224 Fed. App'x 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2007) ). All references are to Title 11, 11 U.S.C. § _ et seq. unless otherwise noted.
The applicable standard of review pertaining to both orders, therefore, is de novo. See id. (reviewing denial of stay relief de novo); see also Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195, 199 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (stating the standard of review for confirmation orders is de novo); Kronemyer v. Am. Contractors Indem. Co. (In re Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915, 919 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) ("We review de novo contentions that present an issue of law regarding stay relief.") (citation omitted). DISCUSSION
The applicable standard of review pertaining to both orders, therefore, is de novo. See id. (reviewing denial of stay relief de novo); see also Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195, 199 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (stating the standard of review for confirmation orders is de novo); Kronemyer v. Am. Contractors Indem. Co. (In re Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915, 919 (9th Cir. BAP 2009) ("We review de novo contentions that present an issue of law regarding stay relief.") (citation omitted).DISCUSSION
To buttress its argument, BT states that pursuant to Section 1325(a)(3), once a creditor makes a prima facie showing of bad faith, the burden shits to the Debtor to prove good faith. See Viegelahn v. Essex, 452 B.R. 195, at 1999 (W.D. Tex., 2011) ("once a Section 1325(a)(3) objection is raised, it is the debtor's burden to show that the plan was proposed in good faith"). See also In re Owsley, 384 B.R. 739 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2008) ("[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, for a debtor to meet this burden without putting on evidence.")