Decision: In re Richard M. Champ and Helen B. Champ, Case No. 08-40272-JDP (Bankr. D. Idaho, 19 Aug. 2013)
Judge: Honorable Jim D. Pappas, United States Bankruptcy Judge
Counsel for Debtors: Paul Ross, Idaho Bankruptcy Law, Paul, Idaho
Chapter 13 Trustee: Kathleen A. McCallister, Meridian, Idaho
Background
Richard and Helen Champ filed a Chapter 13 petition on 8 April 2008, represented by attorney Emil F. Pike, Jr. Their plan was confirmed in October 2008, requiring monthly payments of $910 over sixty months toward $53,019.09 in unsecured debt. The confirmation order included a specific provision reflecting that Mrs. Champ had a pending Social Security disability claim: if she were awarded benefits, the Debtors were required to file an amended Schedule I to disclose that income.
The Debtors faithfully made plan payments for nearly five years — even through a period in which Mr. Champ suffered a heart attack and the Trustee extended the payment period to allow them to catch up. By the time this dispute arose, only approximately $1,130 remained unpaid under the Plan.
The Trustee’s Motion
In March 2013 — nearly two years after learning of the Social Security award from the Debtors’ 2011 tax return — McCallister filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the Debtors had failed to comply with the confirmation order by not amending their schedules to disclose Mrs. Champ’s Social Security lump sum award of $37,914.40 and her ongoing monthly benefit of $1,038.90. The Trustee argued the award remained property of the estate and demanded either dismissal or a turnover of approximately $25,600 to pay creditors in full.
The Objection
The Debtors engaged new counsel — Paul Ross with Idaho Bankruptcy Law — and filed a substantive objection raising several important points.
First, the Debtors’ original attorney, Emil Pike, had passed away in April 2010, leaving them without legal guidance at the precise moment they needed it most. When Mrs. Champ received the Social Security award in mid-2011, the Debtors did what they understood to be appropriate — they called the Trustee’s office. A factual dispute arose over what was communicated: the Trustee believed the Debtors were asking about a payoff and were told to contact an attorney; the Debtors believed they were simply told to keep making plan payments. Either way, their outreach demonstrated good faith, not an intent to conceal.
Second, new counsel promptly filed amended Schedules B, C, and I to address all disclosure deficiencies, including the Social Security lump sum, the ongoing monthly benefit, and a previously undisclosed $92 monthly Lamb Weston pension payment to Mrs. Champ.
Third, and critically as a legal matter, Social Security benefits are excluded from the calculation of a debtor’s current monthly income under 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A)(B) following BAPCPA. As such, the Social Security award would not have increased the Debtors’ required plan payments regardless of when it was disclosed. The Trustee’s demand for a $25,600 turnover had no statutory basis.
The objection also raised alternative relief: modification of the plan under § 1329 to reduce any remaining payment obligation to zero given the Debtors’ reduced income and medical hardships, or alternatively, a hardship discharge under § 1328(b) given that the plan shortfall was attributable to circumstances beyond the Debtors’ control — specifically, the death of their attorney and Mr. Champ’s serious medical issues.
The Court’s Ruling
Judge Pappas denied the Trustee’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. While acknowledging that the Debtors technically failed to comply with the confirmation order, the Court exercised its discretion under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) — which uses the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “shall” — and weighed the totality of the circumstances carefully.
The Court’s analysis turned on several key findings:
- The death of the Debtors’ attorney left them without guidance at a pivotal moment, and their confusion about compliance was understandable given that circumstance
- The Debtors’ phone call to the Trustee’s office and their voluntary provision of their 2011 tax return — which disclosed the Social Security income — demonstrated that they were not attempting to conceal anything
- The Debtors had substantially completed five years of plan payments; denying them a discharge at that stage would be a disproportionately harsh sanction
- Under post-BAPCPA law, Social Security income is excluded from current monthly income under § 101(10A)(B), meaning the award would not have changed the Debtors’ payment obligations in any event — a point recently confirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Drummond v. Welsh (In re Welsh), 711 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2013)
- The undisclosed Lamb Weston pension of $92 per month, while a concern, was too minor an omission to override five years of consistent plan compliance
The Court declined to consider the alternative requests for plan modification or hardship discharge raised in the objection, noting those would need to be raised by proper motion with appropriate notice — but the dismissal motion itself was denied, clearing the path for the Debtors to receive their discharge.
Why This Matters
1. Disclosure obligations are ongoing and binding. Confirmed plans create court orders, and debtors must comply with them throughout the life of the case — not just at the point of confirmation. A change in financial circumstances mid-case requires prompt attention.
2. Attorney death mid-case creates real risk for clients. When counsel passes away during a long Chapter 13 plan, clients are left without guidance precisely when they may need it most. Practitioners and courts alike should be attentive to these situations, and successor counsel should audit compliance with the confirmation order from the outset.
3. Social Security income is excluded from disposable income calculations post-BAPCPA. While SS income must be disclosed on Schedule I, it does not factor into a debtor’s projected disposable income under § 1325(b), and — as confirmed in In re Welsh — it cannot be considered in a good faith analysis under § 1325(a). The Trustee’s demand for a $25,600 turnover in this case was legally untenable.
4. Dismissal under § 1307(c) is discretionary. Courts are not required to dismiss even upon a finding of material default. Where debtors have acted in good faith, made substantial plan payments, and the equities weigh against dismissal, courts retain and will exercise broad discretion to deny the motion.
5. Good faith communication matters. The Debtors’ efforts — calling the Trustee’s office, providing tax returns, engaging new counsel promptly — were central to the Court’s finding that no intent to evade existed. Documented communication with the Trustee’s office, even if informal, can be meaningful evidence in contested dismissal proceedings.
Full Decision: Case No. 08-40272-JDP, Doc. 72 (Bankr. D. Idaho 19 Aug. 2013)
Sagacity 