disclaimer stampThis website is not intended to be a legal advice resource. It is only meant to be used for educational reasons. Please don’t take any action or refrain from taking any action based on what you’ve read on this website. This website, article, or link may contain outdated, incorrect, or irrelevant information. It is your obligation to speak with an expert attorney who can apply current legislation or laws to your personal situation in a professional manner.

There is no attorney-client relationship formed by using this site or communicating with Law Office of D.L. Drain or any of our employees. Please read the complete disclaimer for additional information.

It is vital that you seek legal advice from a qualified attorney on your individual situation. It will almost certainly cost you less to seek advice before acting than it will to repair your mistakes.

CHAPTER 20 OR 26 (MULTIPLE BANKRUPTCY CASES)

IMPORTANT: THIS FIRM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OR CURRENT STATUS OF ANY LAW, CASE, ARTICLE OR PUBLICATION CITED HEREIN OR LINKED TO.
WARNING – SOME OF THESE REFERENCES ARE PRE-BAPCPA.

Debtor can file a chapter 13 following a chapter 7.

In re Aleli Hernandez  9th Cir. BAP No. 16-1228, (2/25/19)  Asset Management Holdings (AMH) appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of AMH’s motion
to dismiss Debtor’s Chapter 13 petition on eligibility grounds. “1. AMH argues that the bankruptcy court erred by not counting AMH’s lien against Debtor for the purposes of determining eligibility under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). AMH is mistaken.”

“2. AMH also argues that the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that Debtor filed her petition in good faith. AMH is wrong.”

FILING POC IN 13 AFTER DISCHARGED IN 7 “CHAPTER 20”

In re Washington, BAP NO. CC-18-1206-LKuF (July 30, 2019) Debtor Gwendolyn Washington obtained a chapter 7 discharge, which extinguished her personal liability on the debt secured by a junior lien on her residence. About five years later, she filed a chapter 13 case; she obtained an order valuing at zero the junior lien held by Option One Mortgage Corporation, serviced by Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (“RTR”). RTR filed an unsecured claim in the full amount of the debt it believed it was owed; Ms. Washington objected on the ground that her personal liability had been discharged. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, concluding that the discharge did not fully eliminate the claim and that the plain language of § 506(a) required the allowance of RTR’s unsecured claim in the amount of $307,049.79. We REVERSE.  BAP finds that a debtor may employ so-called chapter 20 to strip off an underwater subordinate mortgage while simultaneously avoiding personal liability for the debt.


In re Boukatch, Az-14-1483 (9th Cir BAP, 7/9/15) Chapter 13 debtors, Serge M. Boukatch and Lori J. Boukatch (“Debtors”), appeal an order denying their motion to avoid a lien on their principal residence.   The bankruptcy court determined that, as a matter of law, a “chapter 20” debtor is not entitled to avoid a wholly unsecured junior lien under §§ 506(a) and 1322(b)(2) against the debtor’s principal residence when no discharge will be entered in the pending chapter 13 case. On this issue of first impression, we REVERSE and REMAND.  (Good discussion on Nobelman and anti-modification provisions.)

We conclude that § 1328(f)(1) does not prevent Debtors’ ability to strip off MidFirst’s wholly unsecured junior lien in their chapter 13 plan, because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prevents chapter 20 debtors from stripping such liens off their principal residence under §§ 506(a)(1) and 1322(b)(2). We further conclude that plan completion is the appropriate end to Debtors’ chapter 20 case. Unlike a typical chapter 13 case, the lien avoidance will become permanent not upon a discharge, but rather upon completion of all payments as required under the plan. In re Davis, 716 F.3d at 338; In re Frazier, 469 B.R. at 900; In re Blendheim, 2011 WL 6779709, at *6; In re Okosisi, 451 B.R. at 99-10 100; In re Frazier, 448 B.R. at 810; In re Tran, 431 B.R. at 235.

These cases hold that a debtor can convert to 13 after a 7 discharge.   In re Oblinger, 288 BR 781 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Ohio, 2003); In re Carter, 285 BR 61 (Bkrtcy. N.D.Ga. 2002); In re Mosby, 244 BR 79 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 2000).  In one attorney’s opinion it shouldn’t be necessary to vacate the chapter 7 discharge.  But others don’t agree.

The typical chapter 20 case works like this: The consumer first files under chapter 7 to extinguish personal liability on a subordinate, underwater home mortgage. Later, sometimes the day after receiving a chapter 7 discharge, the consumer files a separate chapter 13 case to strip off the mortgage lien that survived chapter 7 as an in rem liability solely against the real property (Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992).

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has validated chapter 20, at least when the debtor receives a discharge in chapter 13. See Washington v. Real Time Resolution Inc. (In re Washington), 602 B.R. 710 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 30, 2019).

When chapter 20 works, the debtor emerges from the subsequent chapter 13 case with the underwater mortgage stripped off and no personal liability on the subordinate mortgage debt.