Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • NC Bankruptcy Cases
    • Eastern District
    • Middle District
    • Western District
  • NC Courts
    • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
    • NC Court of Appeals
    • NC Business Court
    • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • Federal Cases
  • Law Reviews & Studies
    • Book Reviews
  • NC Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
User account menu
  • Log in

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Blogs

Law Review: Hannah L. Fink, Penalizing Compliance: The Case for Paying Chapter 13 Trustees in the Event of PreConfirmation Dismissal, 41 EMORY BANKR. DEV. J. 105 (2024).

Profile picture for user Ed Boltz
By Ed Boltz, 11 February, 2025

Available at:   https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/ebdj/vol41/iss1/3

Abstract:

Standing trustees provide a critical function of fairness in chapter 13 bankruptcy, but a jurisdictional split regarding their fees means that trustees in multiple circuits are not paid for a large percentage of their work. Under Ninth and Tenth Circuit precedents, standing trustees may not collect the percentage fee when the debtor’s case is dismissed before confirmation. This creates a different result for standing trustees as opposed to single-case trustees, hurts debtors and creditors, creates adverse incentives, and even constitutional conundrums.

Permitting some debtors to enjoy the benefits of chapter 13 without paying their fair share creates a system where standing trustees must work on their cases, potentially for extended periods of time. Further, trustees risk going uncompensated if the debtor decides he wants to leave chapter 13 or refuses to propose a viable plan for confirmation. When these debtors do not pay the trustee fee, the trustee must find another source to fund her office operations.  Thus, trustees resort to increasing their percentage fee to compensate for these losses, meaning other debtors must pay more to use chapter 13 and unsecured
creditors get a lower payout. 

The Ninth and Tenth Circuit approaches further create nonsensical incentives where debtors are motivated to draw out the confirmation process as long as possible with no intention of confirming their plan to avoid paying the trustee fee. It also creates an incentive for trustees to confirm plans regardless of their feasibility, working counter to their role as a keeper of fairness in chapter 13. Additionally, by only awarding trustees their fees in the event of  confirmation, a constitutional issue arises due to the trustee’s role as a quasi-judicial officer. This Comment untangles the various approaches courts have taken in awarding trustee fees in the event of pre-confirmation dismissals and delves into the harmful consequences of the Ninth and Tenth Circuit precedents.

This Comment argues that standing trustee compensation in chapter 13 should not be denied merely because a debtor’s proposed plan does not pass confirmation muster. Such an approach creates absurd and undesirable outcomes across the board in the chapter 13 system. Rather, courts should endorse the approach of other bankruptcy and district courts that allow for payment of standing chapter 13 trustee fee awards regardless of plan confirmation status. Even better, Congress should settle the issue by crafting a simple amendment to the Bankruptcy Code that resolves this issue entirely.  

Commentary:

While it certainly would be inaccurate or even absurd to assert that that the failure  to confirm a Chapter 13 never is the fault of the consumer debtor,  it is just as equally flawed to believe that overweening demands, requirements and expectations (occasionally exceeding any statutory requirement) by Chapter 13 Trustees never lead to the dismissal prior to confirmation of cases that would otherwise have been successful.  

Perhaps by being mindful of their own pecuniary interests,  Chapter 13 Trustees  would negotiate with an eye towards confirmation,  including the costs and risk of litigation.  Chapter 7 Trustees,  clearly motivated by their own bottom line together with their statutory obligations,  routinely settle matters with debtors,  creditors and third-parties  for less than the maximum potential recovery (but more than the minimum potential recovery),  without an implication that such somehow corrupts or distorts their duties.  

Chapter 13 trustees are,  as human beings,  no better or worse than Chapter 7 trustees (or even debtors)  in this regard.

With proper attribution,  please share this post. 

To read a copy of the transcript, please see:

Blog comments

Attachment
Document
penalizing_compliance_the_case_for_paying_chapter_13_trustees_in_the_event_of_pre-confirmation_dismissal.pdf (915.96 KB)
Category
Law Reviews & Studies

About Us

Mountain View The purpose of the NC Bankruptcy Expert blog is to provide legal professionals with a consolidated resource for updates and case summaries about issues and decisions affecting bankruptcy, foreclosures, mortgages, and debt collection.

 
Lawyer Edward Boltz | Top Attorney Chapter 7

NC Bankruptcy Expert FREE Consultation

We Offer A Free Bankruptcy Consultation which has helped over 70,000 North Carolina families. We serve the entire state of North Carolina.

Proud Member of:












Categories

  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Book Reviews
  • District Courts
  • Eastern District
  • Ed Boltz: Bankruptcy Attorney
  • Federal Cases
  • Forms
  • Home
  • Law Reviews & Studies
  • Middle District
  • Mortgage Modification Mediation Documents
  • NC Business Court
  • NC Court of Appeals
  • NC Courts
  • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • News
  • North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases
  • North Carolina District Court Cases
  • North Carolina Exemptions Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
  • Student Loan Options and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Western District
RSS feed
v. 1.2.2, © 2013-2025 ncbankruptcyexpert.com, all rights reserved. Follow @edboltz