John E. Waites, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, District of South Carolina.
This matter comes before the Court upon the objection of First Palmetto Bank ("First Palmetto") to the Chapter 13 plan filed by the debtor McKinley Gibson ("Debtor"), on June 1, 2016 ("Original Plan") and amended on June 24, 2016 ("Amended Plan"). The Debtor asks that First Palmetto's objection filed on July 1, 2016, be overruled as late pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1323(c)
Under the facts presented in this case, and pursuant to the applicable law, the Court finds that because the time for objecting to the Original Plan had not run before the Debtor filed and served the Amended Plan containing a new notice
1. The Debtor filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Code on April 28, 2016.
2. First Palmetto is the holder of a secured claim against the Debtor.
3. On June 1, 2016, the Debtor filed his proposed Chapter 13 plan ("Original Plan"). The Original Plan was in the form required by SC LBR 3015-1, and gave creditors and parties in interest notice that objections to the Original Plan were required to be filed and served within twenty-eight (28) days
4. The Original Plan was served by mail on First Palmetto and its counsel on June 1, 2016. It is undisputed that service was proper and that First Palmetto and its counsel received the Original Plan.
5. On June 24, 2016, ten (10) days before the running of the July 4 deadline for objections to the Original Plan, the Debtor filed his amended plan ("Amended Plan"). The Amended Plan was in compliance with Exhibit A to SC LBR 3015-2, and gave creditors and parties in interest notice that objections to the Amended Plan were required to be filed and served within twenty-eight (28) days from the date the Amended Plan was filed.
6. The Amended Plan provided the following treatment of First Palmetto's claim:
This is substantially the same treatment of First Palmetto's claim as was provided for in the Original Plan:
7. In compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002,
8. First Palmetto filed and served its plan objection on July 1, 2016.
9. At the confirmation hearing, the Debtor objected to the Court's consideration of First Palmetto's objection, arguing that it was not timely filed.
At issue before the Court is whether an amended chapter 13 plan, filed and served on an unaffected creditor before the running of the deadline for the creditor to accept or reject the initial plan, resets the deadline for the creditor to object to its treatment, or whether the creditor is bound by the objection deadline set forth in the initial plan.
At the outset, the Court notes that First Palmetto's objection, filed on July 1, 2016, was filed one business day
Section 1323(b) provides that a debtor may modify a plan any time before confirmation. Upon filing the modified plan becomes the plan, replacing the previously filed document. 11 U.S.C. § 1323(b); see Collier on Bankruptcy 8-1323 ("Section
It is well established that a secured creditor properly served with notice of a plan, who fails to object to its treatment within the objection period, is deemed to have accepted the plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(A); see In re Crawford, 532 B.R. 645 (Bankr.D.S.C.2015); In re Grissom, Case No. 11-04553-JW. slip op. (Bankr.D.S.C. January 3, 2012); In re Turner, Case No. 10-03358-JW, slip op. (Bankr.D.S.C. Sept. 21, 2010); In re Dangerfield, Case No. 04-13686, slip op. (Bankr.D.S.C. Aug. 23, 2005); In re Thomas, 1997 WL 33343973 (Bankr.D.S.C. Jul. 11, 1997) (noting that most courts that have considered the issue have held that a secured creditor's failure to object to a chapter 13 plan constitutes acceptance of that plan under § 1325(a)(5)(A)). It is also well established that a secured creditor cannot circumvent the consequences of its failure to object to its treatment in the initial plan by filing an objection to an amended plan that does not change its original treatment. See In re Grissom, supra; In re Turner, supra; In re Washington, Case No. 05-14835-JW, slip op. (Bankr.D.S.C. April 27, 2006). This opinion does not change this black letter law or established precedent.
The distinguishing factor in this case is the timing of the filing and service of the Amended Plan in relation to the Original Plan, and the ambiguity created by the overlapping notices. Because the time had not yet run for First Palmetto to object to the Original Plan, First Palmetto cannot be deemed to have accepted the Original Plan. When the Debtor filed and served on all creditors the Amended Plan containing a new notice period before expiration of the initial objection period, this re-set the notice for all creditors who received notice of the new objection period.
For the reasons stated herein, the Debtor's challenge to the timeliness of First Palmetto's objection to the Original Plan is overruled.
The relief set forth on the following pages, for a total of 7 pages including this page, is hereby ORDERED.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a)(5) and (b).