Thomas J. Tucker, United States Bankruptcy Judge.
This case came before the Court for a hearing on October 2, 2019, followed by an evidentiary hearing on November 25, 2019, on the Debtor's motion entitled "Motion of Conversion of Chapter 7 Proceeding to Chapter 13 Proceeding Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 706" (Docket # 67, the "Motion"). The Chapter 7 Trustee objected to the Motion. Counsel for the Debtor and counsel for the Chapter 7 Trustee appeared at both hearings, and the Debtor appeared at the November 25, 2019 evidentiary hearing.
The Court has considered all of the written and oral arguments, and filed exhibits, of the Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee regarding the Motion. The Court also has considered all of the exhibits that were admitted into evidence during the November 25, 2019 evidentiary hearing, namely, the Trustee's Exhibits A through Q, and the Debtor's Exhibits 1 and 3-7.
This Opinion states the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the Motion. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court will grant the Motion, with certain conditions.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this bankruptcy case and this contested matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 157(a) and 157(b)(1), and Local Rule 83.50(a) (E.D. Mich.). This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). This matter also is "core" because it falls within the definition of a proceeding "arising under title 11" and of a proceeding "arising in" a case under title 11, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Matters falling within either of these categories in § 1334(b) are deemed to be core proceedings. See Allard v. Coenen (In re Trans-Industries, Inc.), 419 B.R. 21, 27 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2009). This matter is a proceeding "arising under title 11" because it is "created or determined by a statutory provision of title 11," id., including 11 U.S.C. § 706(a). And this matter is a proceeding "arising in" a case under title 11, because it is a proceeding that "by [its] very nature, could arise only in bankruptcy cases." Id.
The Chapter 7 Trustee argues that the Debtor is guilty of bad faith, such that the Court should deny the Debtor's Motion to convert based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365, 127 S.Ct. 1105, 166 L.Ed.2d 956 (2007).
In Marrama, the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy debtor's right under 11 U.S.C. § 706(a)
The Trustee also argues that the Court should deny the Debtor's Motion because the conversion of this case would be futile, because the Debtor would not be able to obtain confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan if this case were converted to Chapter 13.
Considering all the evidence, the Court cannot find or conclude any of the following things: (1) that the conversion of this Chapter 7 case to Chapter 13 would be futile; (2) that the Debtor could not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan if this case were converted to Chapter 13; or (3) that the Debtor could not fully perform a confirmed Chapter 13 plan if this case were converted to Chapter 13.
Nor can the Court find that the conversion of this case to Chapter 13 at this time would likely lead to delay prejudicial to creditors and the bankruptcy estate, given the conditions that the Court will impose, described below.
Nor can the Court find that the Debtor is guilty of disqualifying bad faith — i.e., bad faith that would lead this Court, in the exercise of its discretion under Marrama, to deny the Debtor the
The Court therefore will grant the Debtor's Motion, and convert this case to Chapter 13. But in doing so, the Court will set certain conditions, which the Court finds necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, and all of which the Debtor has agreed to, as stated by Debtor's counsel on the record during the evidentiary hearing. These conditions are:
For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court will enter an order granting the Debtor's Motion and converting this case to Chapter 13, effective immediately, subject to the conditions described above.