UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

In re: 

Stanislav Ougrinov Ilyev, 

Debtor. 

Case No. 17-12987-KHK 

(Chapter 13) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

AND ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY DEBTOR’S 

CONFIRMED CHPATER 13 PLAN 

This matter initially came before the Court on the Debtor’s Motion to Approve a 

Proposed COVID-19 Payment Deferral. Docket No. 178. The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a 

Response and a Motion to Modify the Debtor’s confirmed Chapter 13 Plan under Bankruptcy 

Code Section 1329. Docket No. 180. The Debtor filed a Response to the Trustee’s Motion. 

Docket No. 181. Both parties filed briefs in support of their respective positions. Docket Nos. 

191, 194. The Court heard the evidence and the parties’ arguments on July 14, 2022, during 

which the Debtor withdrew his Motion. 

 For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the Trustee’s Motion. 

Findings of Fact 

 The Court, having heard the evidence, makes the following findings of fact. 

A. The Debtor’s Confirmed Chapter 13 Plan. 

1. The Debtor, Stanislav O. Ilyev, filed a Voluntary Petition under Chapter 13 with 

this Court on September 1, 2017. Docket No. 1. He is a Systems Administrator with a law firm in 

Falls Church, Virginia. Docket No. 133, Schedule I. 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 11
2

2. The Debtor is a below-median debtor. Docket No. 18-1, Form 122-C1.1

3. The case was contentious. After the Debtor filed five Chapter 13 Plans (Docket 

Nos. 20, 41, 82, 95, 133), all of which drew objections from his creditors and the Chapter 13 

Trustee, the Court confirmed the Debtor’s Amended Chapter 13 Plan in April 2019. Docket No. 

142. 

4. The confirmed Amended Plan called for the Debtor to pay $6,950.00 to the 

Trustee (which he had already paid by the time the Plan was confirmed), plus $420 per month for 

the remaining 43 months of the Plan. Docket No. 133, ¶ 2. The Amended Plan proposed a 4% 

return to the Debtor’s unsecured creditors. Id., ¶ 5.2

 

5. The Amended Plan called for the Debtor to retain his property at 45476 Baggett 

Terrace, Sterling, Virginia 20166 (“the Property”) and to continue to make the monthly mortgage 

payments. Id., ¶ 6(A). 

6. On Schedule J attached to the confirmed Amended Plan, the Debtor took a 

deduction in the amount of $1,625.00 per month for the payment of his mortgage. Id., Schedule 

J, Line 4. 

B. The Debtor Receives a Covid-19 Forbearance. 

7. On April 26, 2022, the Debtor filed a Motion to Approve Proposed Covid-19 

Payment Deferral. Docket No. 178. 

1

  Being below median has two consequences. First, the Debtor’s expenses for purposes of determining his 

disposable income are his actual expenses as stated on Schedule J, as opposed to Means Test expenses as stated on 

Schedule 122-C2. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). Second, the Debtor’s commitment period is 36 months, as opposed to 60 

months for above-median debtors. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(d). The 36 months can be extended for up to 60 months for 

cause. Id. 2

According to the Amended Plan ,there were only $2,080.00 in arrearages on the home mortgage at the time. Id., ¶ 

6(A). This was consistent with the Proof of Claim filed by Wells Fargo in the case. Proof of Claim No. 3-1, ¶ 9. 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 11
3

8. In his Motion, the Debtor stated: “During the Covid-19 pandemic, the debtor 

accepted a forbearance from his mortgage company and did not pay his mortgage for a period of 

18 months.” Id., ¶ 1. 

9. According to the Notice from Wells Fargo, the Debtor was to resume making 

regular monthly mortgage payments as of February 1, 2022. Id., Ex. 1. This meant that the 

Debtor was not making mortgage payments from September 2020 to February 2022. 

10. The Trustee filed an Opposition and Motion to Modify the Debtor’s Plan pursuant 

to Bankruptcy Code Section 1329. Docket No. 180. 

11. In his Response to the Trustee’s Motion, the Debtor argued that he will have to 

repay the deferred mortgage payments at some point, and that that the Trustee had no authority 

to seek a retroactive modification of the confirmed Plan. Docket No. 181. 

12. The Trustee requested expedited discovery from the Debtor, which the Court 

granted. Docket No. 184. 

13. The Trustee served the Debtor with discovery requests, seeking to determine what 

the Debtor did, if anything, with the deferred mortgage payments. Docket No. 185. 

14. The Debtor did not respond to the Trustee’s discovery requests. Rather, he sent an 

e-mail to his counsel, which his counsel forwarded to the Trustee. Tr. Ex. 1. In his e-mail, the 

Debtor stated that he spent $17,000.00 on various expenditures, including IT training for his 

wife, child care for his daughter and acting classes for his step-daughter. Id. He claimed, with 

respect to the remaining $11,000.00 or so, that he has outstanding medical bills of $10,000.00. 

He did not, however, provide any supporting documentation to the Trustee, nor did he present 

any evidence of such expenses at the hearing on July 14, 2022. 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 11
4

15. In fact, the Debtor did not present any evidence at the hearing that he was 

adversely affected by Covid at all. He is still employed by the law firm and does not appear to 

have suffered any decrease in income as a result of Covid (it is not clear to the Court why the 

Debtor applied for Covid relief in the first place). 

16. The Debtor withdrew his Motion to Approve Proposed Covid-19 Payment 

Deferral in open court on July 14th. 

Conclusions of Law 

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Order of 

Reference entered by the U.S. District Court for this District on August 15, 1984. This is a core 

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) (confirmation of plans). 

I. Property of the Estate and Plan Modifications. 

When a bankruptcy case is filed, an estate is created. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). The estate 

consists of all non-exempt property owned by the debtor on the petition date. Id. (“all the 

following property, wherever located and by whomever held”). There are exceptions. For 

example, property in which the debtor holds bare legal title, and the beneficial ownership rests 

with another person, is not property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(d). Further, property that the 

debtor acquires within 180 days of the bankruptcy petition by devise, bequest or inheritance, 

through a property settlement agreement or a divorce decree, or as the proceeds of life insurance 

policies or death benefit plans, is property of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5). 

Chapter 13 has an important, additional requirement. All non-exempt property that the 

debtor acquires after the commencement of the case becomes property of the bankruptcy estate. 

11 U.S.C. § 1306(a). The Fourth Circuit has held that property acquired after the commencement 

of a Chapter 13 case becomes property of the estate whether or not it was acquired within the 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 11
5

180-day limit of Section 541(a)(5). Carroll v. Logan, 735 F.3d 147, 152 (4th Cir. 2013). In other 

words, Section 1306(a) is broader than Section 541(a)(5), and includes all non-exempt, postpetition property acquired by the debtor during the course of the case. Id. 

Prior to Carroll v. Logan, the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors have standing 

to maintain non-bankruptcy causes of action in their own name, without joining the Chapter 13 

trustee as a party. Wilson v. Dollar General Stores, Inc., 717 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2013). 

With respect to plan modifications, a modification is justified under Bankruptcy Code 

Section 1329 when the debtor experiences a “substantial and unanticipated” change in financial 

circumstances. Murphy v. O'Donnell (In re Murphy), 474 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 2007). Whether 

a change in financial condition is significant enough to be considered substantial depends on the 

facts and circumstances of each case. See, e.g., Martinez v. Gorman (In re Martinez), 2022 WL 

2165994 (E.D. Va. 2022) (holding that debtor’s mortgage refinance was unanticipated, but 

holding that $300 in monthly mortgage savings was not substantial: “A monthly savings of $300 

a month amounts to less than a three percent increase in Debtor's monthly income; this is a 

modest increase, not a substantial change”); Goodman v. Gorman (In re Goodman), 534 B.R. 

656 (E.D. Va. 2015) (debtor’s inheritance of $36,000 was substantial and unanticipated). 

II. The Duty of Disclosure in Chapter 13. 

When a debtor files a bankruptcy case, he or she is required to file accurate and complete 

Schedules, listing all of the debtor’s assets and liabilities. 11 U.S.C. 521; Bankruptcy Rule 1007. 

Bankruptcy Rule 1007(h) requires debtors to file Amended Schedules disclosing the kind of 

property described in Section 541(a)(5) (which applies in both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases), 

“within 14 days after the information comes to the debtor’s knowledge.” The Rule is limited, 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 11
6

however, to Section 541(a)(5) property, and does not cover the broader Section 1306(a) type of 

property (which, as noted, applies at any time in the case and is not limited as to time). 

Debtors also have a duty of cooperation with the Trustee. Section 521(a)(3) requires 

debtors to cooperate with trustees “as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee’s 

duties” under Title 11. 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(3). Bankruptcy Rule 4002(a)(4) requires the debtor to 

“cooperate with the trustee” in the administration of the estate. 

The duty of a debtor to disclose post-petition assets has been the subject of some 

controversy in the case law. Bankruptcy Judge Waites of the District of South Carolina has 

written a thoughtful opinion in which he concluded that there is no duty of disclosure in the postpetition environment under Chapter 13. In re Boyd, 618 B.R. 133 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2020). The 

Boyd case involved a Chapter 13 debtor who had completed his plan, and had received his 

discharge. The case was closed after the Trustee filed her Final Report and Accounting. The 

debtor had been involved in a car accident while the case was pending, and filed a lawsuit in 

State court to recover damages. When the defendants moved for summary judgment in the State 

court on the ground of judicial estoppel (because the claim had not been disclosed in the 

bankruptcy court), the debtor moved to reopen his case. The bankruptcy court granted the 

debtor’s motion to reopen, without opposition. The debtor filed Amended Schedules B and C, 

listing the personal injury claim and asserting an exemption under State law for the same. The 

State court defendants then moved to reconsider the reopening of the case. 

Judge Waites, after surveying the case law and the relevant treatises, held that there was 

no duty to disclose a post-petition cause of action in a Chapter 13 case. 618 B.R., at 156. He 

further held that the State court defendants lacked standing to object to the reopening of the case 

to list and exempt the cause of action, because they were not creditors and had no pecuniary 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 11
7

interest in the bankruptcy case itself. Id., at 161. In so holding, he found the interests of the State 

court defendants to be “too remote, too hypothetical, and too speculative” to establish standing. 

Id., at 159.3

 The Boyd opinion is distinguishable factually from this case for a number of reasons. 

First, Boyd involved a case that was already closed, and the debtor had received his discharge. 

The State court creditors lacked standing to object to the reopening. The case involved an exempt 

asset, one that the Chapter 13 Trustee would never administer for the benefit of the creditors (and 

one that the debtor had standing to maintain in State court, under Wilson). This case, on the other 

hand, has never been closed, and involves the Debtor’s non-exempt disposable income. The 

Chapter 13 Trustee inarguably has standing to be heard on matters of plan confirmation and 

disposable income. 

 Other courts, including this one, have held that debtors do in fact have an obligation to 

disclose assets acquired post-petition to the Trustee. In re Cortez, 457 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir. 

2006) ("As a practical matter, then, the debtors would be obligated to amend their schedules to 

disclose any post-petition income under Chapter 13."); see In re Zvoch, 618 B.R. 734, 739 

(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2020) (“A chapter 13 case does not end at plan confirmation, and neither does 

a debtor's responsibilities... Lest there be any confusion, this means a chapter 13 debtor has a 

‘continuing duty to disclose changes in [their] financial situation during the pendency of [their] 

case’”); In re Padula, 542 B.R. 753, 760 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2015) (“This is not to say that there 

are never any consequences for a Chapter 13 debtor, should she fail to disclose a post-petition 

cause of action in her case. Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, the Court can 

dismiss her case on bad faith grounds for a failure to disclose a cause of action.”); In re Pautin, 

3

Judge Waites went on to address the merits of the Motion to Reopen and the debtor’s claim of exemption, despite 

the objecting parties’ lack of standing. Ultimately, he held that the case was properly reopened, and that the debtor’s 

claim of exemption would be allowed. 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 11
8

521 B.R. 754, 763 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2014) (court finding "that Debtor's failure to report her 

additional earnings and tax refunds, absent a specific demand by the Trustee, is not good faith"). 

In the Court’s view, opinions like Boyd, while correct in holding that the Code and Rules 

do not contain an independent duty to amend the debtor’s schedules post-petition, place 

insufficient weight on the duty of cooperation under Section 521(a)(3) and Rule 4002(a)(4). This 

case presents a perfect example. The Debtor obtained relief from his mortgage for eighteen 

months. At $1,625.00 per month, that represents a deferral totaling $29,250.00. The Debtor never 

informed the Chapter 13 Trustee of the deferral until the mortgagee requested that the Debtor 

seek an order from the Court approving the same. In the meantime, the Debtor (who was 

employed at his law firm the entire time) spent $17,000 of the funds on his wife’s education, 

child care and acting lessons for his step-daughter. Tr. Ex. 1. 

The Debtor, and some of the case law, suggest that it might be too difficult to draw the 

line for the types of changes that must be disclosed. The Fourth Circuit, however, already has 

provided us with the benchmark in Murphy – changes in the debtor’s financial condition need to 

be disclosed to the Trustee when they are “substantial and unanticipated.” Minor fluctuations 

need not be reported; major ones do.4

The duty of cooperation under Section 521(a)(3) and Rule 4002(a)(4) includes a duty of 

disclosure for substantial and unanticipated changes in the Debtor’s financial condition. The 

Chapter 13 Trustee cannot perform his duties, and the Court is not in a position to decide 

whether a particular change in financial circumstances may be substantial and unanticipated, 

without disclosure. As discussed below, the Court finds that the Covid mortgage deferral 

constitutes a substantial and unanticipated change. Therefore, the Court finds that under Section 

4 The most common change in circumstances, whether positive or negative, a material change in the debtor’s 

income, will be apparent from the debtor’s tax returns. In this District, debtors are required to produce their tax 

returns to the Chapter 13 Trustee annually, post-confirmation.

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 11
9

521(a)(3) and Rule 4002(a)(4), the Debtor had a duty to disclose the Covid mortgage deferral to 

the Chapter 13 Trustee. 

III. The Trustee’s Motion to Modify in This Case. 

Turning to the application of Section 1329, the Court finds that the Debtor’s eighteenmonth mortgage loan deferral was both substantial and unanticipated. It was unanticipated 

because no one could have predicted the outbreak of Covid, and the resulting economic 

consequences. Before Covid, mortgage loan deferrals and modifications were much more 

difficult for borrowers to obtain. The change also was substantial. A savings of $1,625 per month 

represents 30% of the Debtor’s gross monthly income of $5,606. Docket No. 133, Schedule I, 

Line 12. (In Gonzales, the Debtor’s $300 per month savings represented less than three percent 

of his monthly income.) Further, the $1,625 mortgage payment was (not surprisingly) the single 

largest item on the Debtor’s Schedule J (Monthly Expenses), and represents 32% of the total 

monthly expenses ($5,086) on Schedule J. This was a substantial change in the Debtor’s 

financial circumstances, for eighteen months. 

The question then becomes the remedy, if any, to be applied in this case. The Debtor 

argues that, notwithstanding his lack of disclosure, the Court cannot impose a retroactive plan 

modification, relying on cases such as In re Pautin, 521 B.R. 754 (Bankr W.D. Tex. 2014), and 

In re Alonso, 570 B.R. 622 (Bankr. D. Id. 2017). These cases rejected what were described as 

retroactive plan modifications, primarily on the ground that the debtors did not have the funds, 

and the court cannot confirm a modified plan that is not feasible. See, e.g., In re Brown, 2022 

WL 193369 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2022) (“Modification is not ‘practicable’ [for purposes of a 

hardship discharge under Section 1328] if there is no source of income to fund the modified plan, 

or if the modified plan would require debtors to make payments beyond the five-year statutory 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 11
10

limit in § 1329(c), or if debtors are unable otherwise to meet the Code's requirements made 

applicable by § 1329(b).”)5 

The Debtor in this case filed his Voluntary Petition in September 2017. His sixty-month 

Plan will expire in October 2022, so he only has approximately three or four months to complete 

his plan. It might be unrealistic to expect the Debtor to pay the Trustee $29,250.00 in the next 

three or four months. On the other hand, the Debtor received the Covid forbearance in December 

2021. Docket No. 178-1, Ex. 1. More importantly, the Debtor was to resume payments on 

February 1, 2022, so he had ceased making his monthly mortgage payments eighteen months 

before that date, in September 2020. Id., pp. 2-3. The Debtor himself filed for approval of the 

same in April 2022. Docket No. 178. The Trustee made his position known on May 2, 2022. 

Docket No. 180. It is difficult for the Court to accept that the Debtor, who failed to disclose the 

forbearance to the Trustee for the entire eighteen-month forbearance period, can now be heard to 

say that a plan modification is infeasible because he has only three or four months left in his 

Plan. 

The Court will order the Debtor to file a Modified Plan. Presumably, the $11,000 is still 

available for distribution to the creditors. Further, some of the $17,000 can be repaid in the 

remaining life of the Plan. The Plan does not have to recapture the entire $29,250.00, but it must 

be a good faith effort to repay the lion’s share of the funds to the Trustee. The Court will view 

the Debtor’s Modified Plan with an eye to both feasibility and good faith. If the Debtor elects not 

to file a Modified Plan, his case may be dismissed. 

The Court, therefore, will grant the Trustee’s Motion to Modify. 

Conclusion 

5

  Section 1329(b) requires that modified plans conform with Section 1325(a) of the Code, which includes the 

requirement of feasibility. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1329(b)(1), 1325(a)(6). 

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 11
11

It is therefore ORDERED: 

A. The Trustee’s Motion to Modify is granted. The Debtor will file a Modified Plan 

within 15 days of the entry of this Opinion and Order. The failure to do so may result 

in dismissal of the case. 

B. The Clerk will mail copies of this Opinion and Order, or will provide cm-ecf notice of 

its entry, to the parties below. 

Date: __________________ __________________________ 

Brian F. Kenney 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

Electronic Copies to: 

Thomas P. Gorman 

Chapter 13 Trustee 

John P. Fitzgerald, III 

U.S. Trustee 

Robert S. Brandt 

Counsel to the Debtor

Jul 26 2022 /s/ Brian F Kenney

Entered On Docket: July 26, 2022

Case 17-12987-KHK Doc 198 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 16:12:57 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 11