This website does not provide legal advice.  It is for informational purposes only. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. The information contained in this web site, article or link may be outdated, incorrect or not applicable; it is your obligation to confirm the accuracy. Using this site or communicating with Law Office of D.L. Drain, or any agent/employee of our firm, through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising. Please review the full disclaimer for more information.

It is very important that you obtain legal advice from an experienced attorney regarding your particular situation. Consultation before you take action will certainly cost you less than it will cost to fix your unintentional errors.

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.