Filed: Apr. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-40516 _ In the Matter of : LILLIE SMITH Debtor - BAYSHORE NATIONAL BANK OF LA PORTE Appellant v. LILLIE SMITH; MICHAEL GROSS Appellees _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:99-CV-239 _ April 5, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-40516 _ In the Matter of : LILLIE SMITH Debtor - BAYSHORE NATIONAL BANK OF LA PORTE Appellant v. LILLIE SMITH; MICHAEL GROSS Appellees _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:99-CV-239 _ April 5, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published an..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-40516
_____________________
In the Matter of : LILLIE SMITH
Debtor
--------------
BAYSHORE NATIONAL BANK OF LA PORTE
Appellant
v.
LILLIE SMITH; MICHAEL GROSS
Appellees
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:99-CV-239
_________________________________________________________________
April 5, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
Lillie Smith, a Chapter 13 debtor who had made twenty-six of
the scheduled fifty-six monthly payments under her confirmed
plan, tendered to the trustee in a lump sum, and the trustee
distributed to her creditors, an amount equal to the total of all
the payments remaining under her plan. The debtor did not seek
any credit against the amounts remaining by reason of the early
payment. The debtor received the funds for the lump sum payment
as a gift from her parents. The trustee promptly filed a Notice
of Plan Completion and Order Setting Discharge, informing
creditors of the trustee’s conclusion that the debtor had
completed payments and performance under her plan. The Notice
further notified creditors that any objection to the trustee’s
final accounting must be filed with the bankruptcy court within
twenty-five days from the date of the Notice or an order of
discharge would be entered without further hearing.
Bayshore National Bank of La Porte, one of the unsecured
creditors, objected, asserting that the debtor was not yet
entitled to a discharge because she had failed to submit all of
her disposable income to the plan or to make payments for a
minimum of thirty-six months. At a hearing held on the
objection, Bayshore further argued that the debtor’s lump sum
payment should be construed by the court to be a motion to
approve a post-confirmation modification of her plan to change
the duration of the plan from fifty-six months to twenty-seven
months, which, Bayshore argued, should be denied.
2
The bankruptcy court held that under the plain language of
28 U.S.C. § 1328(a), the tender of a lump sum payment satisfying
all amounts due under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan entitled the
debtor to a discharge. The bankruptcy court rejected Bayshore’s
argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1325(b) compelled a different result,
noting that § 1325(b) addressed only the conditions on which a
Chapter 13 plan can be confirmed over the objection of a trustee
or an unsecured creditor. The court also rejected Bayshore’s
attempt to convert the issue of the debtor’s entitlement to a
discharge into a dispute regarding a post-confirmation
modification of her plan, noting that no party statutorily
entitled to file a motion for plan modification had done so. The
bankruptcy court concluded that the debtor was statutorily
entitled to a discharge and entered an Order Affirming Completion
of Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan and Directing Entry of Discharge
Order.
Bayshore appealed to the district court, which affirmed the
bankruptcy court’s Order. Bayshore has appealed the district
court’s judgment to this court. We are persuaded that, under the
particular circumstances of this case, the district court did not
err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s Order.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3
4