Meza v. Truman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a particular class provided for by the plan; (2) extend or reduce the time for such payments; [or] (3) alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor whose claim is provided for by the plan to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of such claim other than under the plan[.]”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Anderson · In re Smith

2. “[I]f the trustee files a modification motion and the debtor then attempts to complete plan payments, the debtor appears to unfairly attempt to circumvent § 1329(b)(2)’s plain language that a “plan as modified becomes the plan unless, after notice and a hearing, such modification is disapproved”. (Emphasis added.) Whether a debtor may attempt to avoid increased plan payments by completing payments after a motion to modify is filed, but before any hearing on that motion can be held, does not appear, however, to have been addressed by this, or any other, court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Lombardi · In Re Ezzell

3. “Some courts have required an unanticipated, substantial change to occur before permitting such plan modification. See In re Hoggle, 12 F.3d 1008 , 1011 (11th Cir.1994) (“Congress designed § 1329 to permit modification of a plan due to changed circumstances of the debtor unforeseen at the time of confirmation.”); In re Furgeson, 263 B.R. 28, 37-38 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.2001) (citing cases supporting this view); see also 5 Norton Bankr. L. & PRAC.2d § 124:2 (noting several courts require “a substantial or even unanticipated change in circumstances, or else the creditor is bound by confirmation of the original plan”). A growing number of courts, however, do not require such a change. See, e.g., Barbosa v. Soloman, 235 F.3d 31, 41 (1st Cir.2000) (“refrain[ing] from adopting the substantial and unanticipated test for seeking a modification pursuant to § 1329”); In re Witkowski, 16 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasizing that, “[b]y its terms, § 1329 does not provide for any threshold requirement to modify a bankruptcy plan”); In re Sutton, 303 B.R. 510, 516 (Bankr. S.D.Ala.2003) (citing Witkowski for the proposition that § 1329’s plain language imposes no substantial change requirement); In re Sounakhene, 249 B.R. 801, 803 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.2000) (“A showing of substantially changed circumstances is not a prerequisite to plan modification.”); In re Phelps, 149 B.R. 534, 538 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1993) (noting “Congress specifically provided for a change in circumstances test under other provisio”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Gonzalez