1 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

IN RE: §

§

WAEL SAMIR FALTS, § Case No. 24-43547-mxm13 

§ Chapter No.: 13 

Debtor. §

OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN 

Thaddeus Coffindaffer and Jennifer Coffindaffer, as trustees of the Coffindaffer Joint 

Revocable Living Trust dated July 10, 2014 (“Lender”) hereby files its Plan Objection (the 

“Objection”). In support of its Objection, Lender respectfully states as follows: 

JURISDICTION 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. This is 

a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. 

2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

3. On or about March 8, 2023, Debtor, Weal Falts, as borrower, and Lender executed 

a Promissory Note (“Note”), Deed of Trust, (“Deed of Trust”), and Warranty Deed with Vendor’s 

Lien (“Warranty Deed”). 

4. As set forth in the Note, Debtor received a loan in the original principal amount of 

$2,660,000.00 at an annual 4.25% interest rate. The Note requires interest payments for the first 

5 years, which accrue on the first day of each month, this started on June 1, 2023. 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 9
2 

79032763;1 

5. The Note is secured by a vendors lien and superior title retained in the Deed of 

Trust and Warranty Deed, from Lender to Debtor, both of which cover real property known as 19 

Wyck Hill Lane, Westlake, Texas (the “Property”). 

6. Lender is the present owner and holder of the Note. 

7. As set forth in greater detail in the Deed of Trust executed in connection with the 

Note requires that Debtor: 

“maintain all property and liability insurance coverage with respect to the 

Property, revenues generated by the Property, and operations on the Property that 

Lenders reasonably require (the “Required Insurance”). 

“pay all taxes and assessments on the Property before delinquency” 

“Keep the buildings occupied as required by the Required Insurance [and]” 

“Notify the Lender of any change of address” 

Deed of Trust at Section B, Guarantor’s Obligation. 

8. As set forth in greater detail in the Warranty Deed executed in connection with the 

Note: 

“The vendor’s lien against and superior title to the Property are retained until each note 

described is fully paid according to its terms, at which time this deed will become 

absolute” 

9. On or about July 13, 2023, Lender received Debtor’s last payment, of $9,420.83, 

the required interest payment under the Note. Lender has not received any payments since, 

10. Accordingly, as of October 9, 2024, the entire principal amount of $2,660,000.00, 

is owed and owing under the loan. 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 9
3 

79032763;1 

11. Debtor also failed to insure the Property. As permitted under Section C.6 of the 

Deed of Trust,1 on or about August 26, 2024, Lender secured an insurance policy, from United 

Services Automobile Association, policy number USAA 005266104 81B, at a cost of $4,229.11. 

12. Debtor failed to pay real estate taxes for the Property. As of July, 2024, 

approximately $19,179.27 continues to be due and owing in property taxes. 

DEBTOR’S FIRST BANKRUPTCY 

13. On November 20, 2023, Debtor filed for relief under Chapter 13 of the United 

States Code with this Court, the Northern District of Texas, under case number 23-43558 (the 

“First Bankruptcy”). 

14. On January 3, 2024, Debtor filed his Schedules and Summary of Assets and 

Liabilities. See ECF No. 7. 

15. On February 14, 2024, the U.S. Trustee’s Office filed its Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to Obtain Timely Confirmation (the “Motion to Dismiss”) the Court granted U.S. 

Trustee’s Motion on July 23, 2024. See First Bankruptcy ECF No. 41 and No. 67. 

16. On August 14, 2024, after Debtor spent nearly a year under the auspices of the 

Bankruptcy Court, the Court dismissed the First Bankruptcy. 

LENDER’S FORECLOSURE EFFORTS 

17. Accordingly, on September 10, 2024, pursuant to Section 51.002 of the Texas 

Property Code, Lender filed an Appointment of Substitute Trustee and Notice of Substitute 

Trustee, in order to proceed with a foreclosure of the Deed of Trust and lien securing the 

payment of the Note (the “Notice”). The Notice set forth a sale date of October 1, 2024. 

1

 Section C(6)(c) states that if the Grantor fails to meet any requirement “Lender may obtain collateral protection 

insurance on behalf of the Grantor at the Grantor’s expense.” 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 9
4 

79032763;1 

DEBTOR’S SECOND BANKRUPTCY 

18. Unsurprisingly, on September 30, 2024, Debtor filed the instant voluntary petition 

under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Petition”). 

19. On October 8, 2024, Debtor filed Motion to Extend the Automatic Stay, in 

tandem with a Motion to Shorten Time to Notice Hearing. See ECF No. 12 and 11. 

20. On October 10, 2024, Debtor filed his Statement of Financial Affairs, Chapter 13 

Plan, Schedules A-B: through J, with Summary of Assets and Liabilities with Declaration about 

an Individual Debtor’s Schedule. See ECF No. 17. 

21. On October 10, 2024, Debtor field, Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan, Containing a 

Motion for Valuation (the “Plan”). See ECF No. 16. 

22. On October 24, 2024, Lender filed an objection to the Debtor’s Motion to Extend 

Automatic Stay. See ECF No. 25. 

23. The first hearing on the Debtor’s Motion to Extend was scheduled for October 24, 

2024. Debtor did not appear at the hearing “due to health reasons.” 

24. On October 28, 2024, the Court entered a Bridge Order – which noted that if 

Debtor failed to make first Trustee payment, before the November 6, 2024, hearing, the stay will 

not be in effect as to creditors. See ECF No. 26. 

25. On October 29, 2024, Trustee filed Trustee’s Motion Dismiss the Chapter 13 case 

for Ineligibility. See ECF No. 28. Lender hereby joins Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Ineligibility. 

26. On November 01, 2024, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for Debtor’s failure to 

make the 1st payment as required by the Bridge Order, which is set for hearing on December 19, 

2024 at 8:30 a.m. See ECF No. 28. 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 9
5 

79032763;1 

27. On November 06, 2024, the Court heard Debtor’s Motion to Extend the 

Automatic Stay. 

28. On November 12, 2024, the Court entered Notice of Confirmation of Plan. See 

ECF No. 35. Debtor’s Plan confirmation hearing is set for December 19, 2024. 

29. On November 15, 2024, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for Debtor’s failure 

to attend the 341 Meeting of creditors. See ECF No. 37. Lender hereby joins Trustee’s Motion to 

Dismiss. 

30. Debtor’s 341-Meeting of the Creditor’s was scheduled for November 11, 2024. 

Without notice or explanation, Debtor failed to attend the 341-Meeting of Creditors. Debtor’s 

341-Meeting of the Creditors was rescheduled to December 11, 2024 only 9 days before 

confirmation. 

31. November 07, 2024, the Court entered Order granting Motion to Extend the 

Automatic Stay. 

The Insurance Policy

32. Debtor provided policy number 58-KB-B435-0, from State Farm Lloyds, 

effective as of April 12, 2024 (the “Insurance Policy”). In relevant part, the Insurance Policy 

states: 

“Additional Interest: Mortgagee, Thaddeas Coffindaffer, Jenniffer Cofindaffer” 

“By submission of this application, you agree that: (1) you had the opportunity to select 

an amount of Coverage A- Dwelling [$1,471,000.00] which would have made you 

eligible for Option ID (increased Dwelling), but chose a lesser amount [$1,176,800.00].” 

“Declined Options” Home Rental. 

The Lease 

33. On November 11, 2024, and not November 6, 2024, as Debtor represented to the 

Court, Debtor executed a residential lease in connection with the Subject Property (the “Lease”). 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 9
6 

79032763;1 

A deposit of $15,900 was allegedly issued in connection with the Lease. Debtor redacted all 

information regarding the prospective tenant. The tenant is expected to move in December. 

Leander learned of the Lease at the Court hearing. 

THE PETITION AND PLAN 

34. Debtor lists the Property as his residence. Petition at p.2. 

35. Schedule A of Debtor’s Petition reflect the Property as having a value of 

$1,821,000.00, values Lender’s claim at $2,000,000, and reflects an unsecured claim, in the 

amount of: $179,000.00. 

ARGUMENT 

I. Debtor filed the Plan in bad faith in violation of Section 1325(a)(3),(6), (7) 

and fails under Sections 1325(b), 1322(b)(2), and (5), and 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). 

Chapter 13 requires a debtor both file and propose a chapter 13 plan in good faith. 11 

U.S.C. §1325(a)(3),(7). The good faith requirement assures chapter 13 filers seek relief “only to 

accomplish the aims and objective of bankruptcy philosophy and policy.” In re Jordan, 598 

B.R. 396, 406 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2019). The absence of good faith or, “bad faith,” constitutes 

cause to dismiss a case a bankruptcy case under section 1307. Id.; 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). 

The Fifth Circuit adopted the totality of the circumstances test for analyzing chapter 13’s 

good faith requirement. Public Fin. Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219, 220–21 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Among the factors a court examines are (1) the motivation and sincerity of the debtor in seeking 

chapter 13 relief; (2) the accuracy of the plan’s statements of the debts, expenses and percentage 

repayment of unsecured debt and whether any inaccuracies are an attempt to mislead the court; 

and (3) the extent to which secured claims are modified. See Matter of Massey, No. CIV. A. 94-

4001, 1995 WL 529825, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 7, 1995); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344, 1348 

(10th Cir. 1983). Determining whether the debtor attempts to abuse the purpose, provisions, or 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 9
7 

79032763;1 

spirit of the bankruptcy code is a court’s most fundamental consideration. In re Jordan, 598 

B.R. at 406; Matter of Chaffin, 816 F.2d 1070, 1073 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Here, Debtor filed the Plan in bad faith. Based on the gross omissions and 

misrepresentations in Debtor’s schedules, Debtor’s sincerity in seeking bankruptcy relief is 

clearly misguided. As set forth in greater detail below, the reasons evidencing Debtor’s bad faith 

also highlight why the Plan fails under Sections 1325(b), 1322(b)(2), and (5), and 

1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). 

As a preliminary matter, Debtor’s asserted net income is set forth on Schedule J as 

$10,950, part 2 q. 23. Plan payments however are only $10,000. The Plan, on its face, evidences, 

that the Debtor is not committing all his disposable income, as required under 1325(b), to the 

repayment of his debts. The Plan as currently filed is also not feasible. 

Debtor’s Statement of Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period, Form 

112-C1 represents that the Debtor is married, however, no income is allocated to the non-filing 

spouse. No income is allocated to the non-filing spouse in the Statement of Financial Affairs. 

Debtor has not made any amendments to his schedules, and did not attend the 341-Meeting of 

Creditors. The 341-Meeting of Creditor’s will not be held until after the deadline to object to the 

Plan. Lender is without recourse. Debtor has failed to disclose all of his assets. 

Moreover, there are material omissions, to Debtor’s expenses and liabilities. Debtor does 

not list Lender’s mortgage payments, or any upkeep on the Property on Schedule J. Moreover, 

Debtor asserts that he has two dependents. However, Debtor fails to set forth any expenses for 

these two “Dependents.” In relevant part, Schedule J reflects: $0 to childcare and children’s 

educational costs, only $100 costs to medical and dental expenses, and $0 to insurance costs, $0 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 9
8 

79032763;1 

to tax expenses, $0 life insurance, health insurance, vehicle insurance (despite listing a 2016 

BMW on Schedule A/B). These gross omission and misrepresentations, inflate Debtor’s income. 

Debtor’s income cannot fund this Plan and Debtor will not survive the financial hardship that 

may occur during the duration of the Plan. As a result, the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not 

feasible. Therefore, the Plan cannot be confirmed. 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(6). 

The Plan improperly modifies Lender’s secured Claim. A Chapter 13 debtor cannot 

modify or alter a creditor's claim “secured only by a security interest in real property that is the 

debtor's principal residence.” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). The rule applies to the entirety of the first 

mortgagee’s claim, even if the creditor is under secured. Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 

324, 329 (1993). The favorable treatment of residential mortgages in chapter 13 was “intended to 

encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market.” Id. at 332 (Stevens, J., concurring 

(citing Grubbs v. Houston First American Savings Assn., 730 F.2d 236, 245–46 (5th Cir. 1984)). 

Lender’s mortgage encumbers Debtor’s principal residence. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 2.) 

“By virtue of its mortgage contract with [Debtor],” Lender is “indisputably the holder of a claim 

secured by a lien on [Debtor’s] home.” Nobelman, 508 U.S. at 328. Debtor may not modify 

Lender’s rights, but his Plan proposes to cram down Lender’s Claim. Lender further objects to 

Debtor’s valuation of Lender’s Claim, and hereby, reserves all rights related to the valuation of 

the Property. Therefore, the Plan payments, provided by the Plan, fail to meet the full value 

requirement 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). 

The Property is not properly ensured and thus the Plan as proposed does not adequately 

protect Lender’s interest in the Property in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and § 1322(b)(5). 

Debtor’s insurance policy does not protect the Lender. The only additional interested parties, are: 

Thaddeas Coffindaffer, Jenniffer Coffindaffer, as individuals. The Property is under secured, 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 9
9 

79032763;1 

policy coverage is provided up and to: $1,471,000.00, which is below Debtor’s own erroneous 

valuation assessment, of $1,821,000.00. Debtor declined additional coverage. Lastly, Debtor 

Declined home rental coverage; therefore, the Property may not be currently covered under the 

Policy. 

Lender reserves the right to further supplement this Objection. 

WHEREFORE, Lender respectfully objects to confirmation of the Plan and requests the 

following: 

1. That confirmation of the proposed Plan be denied; 

2. For such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: December 4, 2024 

Respectfully Submitted, 

AKERMAN LLP 

By: Laura Taveras

Laura Taveras, SBN 24127243 

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 360 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Tel. No.: (214) 720-4300 

Fax No.: (214) 981-9339 

E-mail: laura.taveras@akerman.com

Attorney for Thaddeus Coffindaffer and 

Jennifer Coffindaffer, as trustees of the 

Coffindaffer Joint Revocable Living Trust 

dated July 10, 2014 

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 39 Filed 12/05/24 Entered 12/05/24 00:21:01 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 9