In Re Jock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Boatmen’s argues that 11 U.S.C.S. § 1327 (1987) prohibits the debtor to modify its treatment after the original confirmation order became final. There is some case support for this view. See In re Abercrombie, 39 B.R. 178 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1984); Kitchen v. Malmstrom Federal Credit Union (In re Kitchen), 64 B.R. 452 (Bankr.D.Mont.1986). See also In re Johnson, 25 B.R. 178 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1982). The cases cited by the bank prohibit post-confirmation modifications based on the “res judicata” or binding effect of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan under § 1327(a). Section 1327(a) is not a limit on permitted modification of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan; rather, it is a statutory description of the effect of a confirmed plan or of a confirmed modified plan. A confirmed Chapter 13 plan binds the debtor (and all creditors), 11 U.S.C.S. § 1327 (a), but a confirmed plan “may be modified ... at any time after confirmation of the plan but before the completion of payments under the plan_” 11 U.S.C.S. § 1329 (a). The confirmed plan binds the debtor unless and until it is modified, and then the modified plan “becomes the plan,” 11 U.S.C.S. § 1329 (b)(2), and the modified plan has the effects described in § 1327. Sections 1322(a), (b), 1323(c) and 1325(a) are the appropriate sources of the limits on modification under § 1329. See 11 U.S.C.S. § 1329 (b). ... That the debtor could convert this Chapter 13 case to a Chapter 7, surrender the car to Boatmen’s and (probably) discharge the deficiency is further”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. First National Bank, Rosedale, Mississippi (In Re Williams) · In Re Townley

2. “(a) At any time after confirmation of the plan but before the completion of payments under such plan, the plan may be modified, upon request of the debtor, the trustee, or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim, to— (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. (b)(1) Sections 1322(a), 1322(b), and 1323(c) of this title and the requirements of section 1325(a) of this title apply to any modification under subsection (a) of this section. (2) The plan as modified becomes the plan unless, after notice and a hearing, such modification is disapproved. (c) A plan modified under this section may not provide for payments over a period that expires after three years after the time that the first payment under the original confirmed plan was due, unless the court, for cause, approves a longer period, but the court may not approve a period that expires after five years after such time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Rincon · Williams v. First National Bank, Rosedale, Mississippi (In Re Williams)

3. “That the debtor could convert this Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7, surrender the can to Boatmen’s and (probably) discharge the deficiency is further evidence that Congress contemplated modification of a Chapter 13 plan to permit the surrender of collateral to the holder of an allowed secured claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chrysler Financial Corp. v. Nolan