The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of confirmation of Bobby Goddard’s Chapter 13 plan, holding that the plan was not proposed in good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3), despite the debtor’s full compliance with the means test under § 1325(b).
Goddard, an above-median income debtor and Army veteran suffering from PTSD, proposed a plan in which he would retain three secured vehicles—a Corvette, a GMC Sierra pickup truck, and a Genesis sedan—while making minimal distributions to unsecured creditors.
In a study of venue for the one hundred ninety-five large, public company bankruptcies filed from 2012 through 2021, I discovered nine cases (5%) in which the companies’ venue claims were in apparent conflict with what the debtors themselves stated on their petitions to be the locations of the companies’ principal places of business and principal assets. Eight of the nine proceeded to confirmation in an improper venue.
In Sugar & Sasser v. Burnett, the Fourth Circuit upheld in part and vacated in part a district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s sanctions arising from a Chapter 13 debtor’s unauthorized sale of her residence. The debtor, Christine Sugar, sold her home during the pendency of her case without prior court approval as required by Eastern District of North Carolina Local Bankruptcy Rule 4002-1(g)(4) and her confirmed Chapter 13 plan, even though the property was partially exempt
