Testimony

Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Official Forms

Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Mecham Center

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20544

January 23, 2015 

 TAB

Chief Judge Rebecca B. Connelly, Virginia Western Bankruptcy Court 1

Chief Judge Keith M. Lundin, Tennessee Middle Bankruptcy Court N/A

Chief Judge Brian D. Lynch, Washington Western Bankruptcy Court 2

Judge Marvin Isgur, Texas Southern Bankruptcy Court 3

Karen Cordry, Esq., States’ Association of Bankruptcy Attorneys - SABA 4

Mike Bates, Esq., Wells Fargo Law Department 5

Alane A. Becket, Esq., Becket & Lee LLP 6

Ronda Winnecour, Esq., Chapter 13 Standing Trustee, Western District

of Pennsylvania 7
TAB 1

Chief Judge Rebecca B. Connelly

Virginia Western Bankruptcy Court
United States Bankruptcy Court Western District of Virginia

The Honorable Rebecca B. Connelly 

United States Courthouse and Federal Building, Room 320 

116 North Main Street 

Harrisonburg, Virginia 22802 

 

Rebecca B. Connelly (540)434-6747 

Chief, United States Bankruptcy Judge FAX (540)433-6390 

January 16, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Scott_Myers@ao.uscourts.gov

Jonathan_Rose@ao.uscourts.gov

Frances_Skillman@ao.uscourts.gov

Re: Testimony to occur on January 23, 2015 before the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules 

and on the proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules and Forms.

Dear Mr. Myers, Mr. Rose and Ms. Skillman:

I am the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Virginia, serving as successor to The 

Honorable Ross W. Krumm. From October 1, 2000, until my appointment in July 2012, I served as a Standing 

Chapter 13 Trustee in Virginia. While Trustee, I was centrally involved in the drafting and adoption of a form 

Chapter 13 plan and local rules for use across the districts in Virginia. It was the first successful effort to obtain 

consensus across districts for the required form and rules regarding its use and application. The statewide, 

multi-district form and rules have improved access to Chapter 13 in both districts and have led to greater 

efficiency and understanding of Chapter 13. I believe a national form will have similar results throughout the 

United States. 

Under the bankruptcy system of the United States, every statutorily required schedule, statement and 

form for consumer debtors is an official, national, form, except for the Chapter 13 plan. Without an official 

form for the Chapter 13 plan, a consumer debtor does not have the assistance of official instructions or the 

ability to use commercial software to assist in generating, testing or filing the plan.

With an official form, software vendors will be able to assist any user of the form with tools to permit 

information sharing among the debtor, the court, the trustee, the creditors, the government, and academics. 

Through plan data sharing, all parties in a Chapter 13 case will have improved access to the plan treatment. The 

result will be faster, more accurate and significantly less expensive notice of the plan information. As with the 

forms modernization project, it is important to recognize that the reporting of the data set out in a form does not 

dictate the manner in which the data is reported. Tools can be implemented to provide data reporting from the 

official form into the format currently used in the local forms that are preferred by some local courts. 
Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

January 16, 2015

Page 2 of 3

The official form accurately tracks Chapter 13. Section 1322 sets forth what a debtor must do and may 

do under a Chapter 13 plan. Section 1325 imposes criteria for that plan to be confirmed. The official form fully 

complies with these sections; any Chapter 13 debtor can use this official form to exercise the rights set out 

under Chapter 13 and draft a plan that complies fully with sections 1322 and 1325. To be sure, a form is not 

law. A debtor may complete an official form plan with accurate information, yet he still may not have drafted a 

plan that a court will confirm. The discretion of the judge to apply section 1325 and other provisions of Chapter 

13 is not altered or eliminated when a party files an official form in a case. As with any drafting, individual 

readers may see language edits that may be an improvement, but as to the debtor’s rights to use Chapter 13 and 

a creditor’s’ rights to be apprised of the effect on its interests if that plan is confirmed, this official form fully 

complies with Chapter 13 law.

I have been able to successfully chart a comparison of the information from the official form with local 

forms and in the process have been able easily to identify how to transfer and replace the information between 

the official form and a local form. In addition, I have attempted to test the form by applying it in my Chapter 13 

cases. I have been unable to find any Chapter 13 plan that cannot be drafted using this proposed official form. 

Not only do our current rules set time periods for Chapter 13 plan confirmation that differ from those of 

the claims allowance process, but they also lack clarification as to the impact of, or distinction between, plan 

confirmation and claims allowance. For example, because a plan must be filed within 14 days of the petition 

(Rule 3015), and objections made within 28 days of service of that plan (Rule 2002(a)), a court may confirm a 

plan after less than 60 days from the petition filing date. On the other hand, because Rule 3002(c) permits a 

creditor until 90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors to file its proof of claim, a creditor has 

more than 60 days from the date of filing to file its proof of claim. Thus is it likely that a plan may be confirmed 

before a creditor has timely filed its claim. Currently circuit court decisions conflict over the extent to which 

plan confirmation controls the amount of a creditor’s claim when plan confirmation occurs prior to the 

expiration of the claims filing period. The proposed amended rules and official form clarify the distinction 

between plan confirmation and claims allowance. First, under the amended rules the time periods for filing 

claims and for filing objections to confirmation of a plan are congruent. Second, the official form incorporates 

important text that clarifies plan confirmation and claims allowance. Thus, the new rules and official form 

eliminate the procedural conflict without adopting a legal position. Under the new rules and official form plan, 

courts will be better able to consider the impact of confirmation on the rights of those affected by the terms. 

This is in part because the court is more likely to have knowledge of all allowed claims at the time confirmation 

of the plan may occur.

Similarly, the current rules provide differing time periods and procedures to address lien avoidance; 

determination of the extent, validity and priority of a lien; and valuation of a secured claim. The proposed 

amended rules eliminate these procedural inconsistencies for addressing liens and secured claims in Chapter 13 

cases. It is not clear how the rules could be effective unless an official Chapter 13 plan form containing 

standard provisions accompanies these rules. 

Perhaps the most compelling reason for adoption of the official form Chapter 13 plan and amended rules 

is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010), which 

emphasized a bankruptcy judge’s responsibility to ensure a plan is not confirmed if it contains improper 

provisions. The official form and accompanying rules improve a bankruptcy judge’s ability to comply with this 

responsibility.
Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

January 16, 2015

Page 3 of 3

Recently some judges submitted a letter expressing concerns over the adoption of an official form plan 

and its accompanying new rules. The letter opposes the approval of the new rules and adoption of the official 

form plan. I disagree with the statements made in the letter opposing the official form plan. My reasons 

include the following: 

1. The official form Chapter 13 plan is a direct response to United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 

U.S. 260 (2010), and is necessary to provide due process to creditors who extend credit to debtors in 

multiple jurisdictions.

2. The official form plan protects the rights of debtors to use Chapter 13 pursuant to the provisions of 

the Bankruptcy Code. It is unclear to me why a debtor should be prohibited from using an official 

form that tracks the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, even if adoption of an official form requires 

administrative changes. As a former Chapter 13 trustee, I appreciate the significance of Chapter 13 

case administration. I am unconvinced, however, that the adoption of an official form prohibits or 

impairs the ability of a trustee or a court to perform its administrative functions. 

3. The official form does not increase costs. Without an official form Chapter 13 plan, data sharing in 

Chapter 13 cases is impossible, thus perpetuating inefficiency and increasing costs in Chapter 13 

case administration.

4. The official form does not mandate any treatment; the official form provides complete and sufficient 

notice to all creditors and parties in interest of all plan terms.

Please recommend for adoption the proposed rules and official Chapter 13 plan form. Thank for 

pursuing this important endeavor that is a vital benefit to bankruptcy practice and case administration. Thank 

for considering my comments. 

Very Truly Yours,

Rebecca B. Connelly
TAB 2

Chief Judge Brian D. Lynch, Washington 

Western Bankruptcy Court
Advisory Committee Testimony of Hon. Brian D. Lynch

I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify regarding the 

proposed mandatory national form plan. I am currently chief 

bankruptcy judge for the Western District of Washington. Before 

becoming judge on June 1, 2010, for a little over six years I served as 

the Chapter 13 trustee for the Portland Division of the Oregon 

bankruptcy court. I was active nationally in the NACTT and held 

leadership positions in the National Data Center and the NACTT 

Mortgage Liaison Committee. And before that I worked for over 25 

years in a law firm, in which I had a substantial practice representing 

all types of consumer creditors, including mortgage lenders and car 

lenders, the majority of which took place in chapter 13

1. Lack of consensus. I want to emphasize a point made strongly by 

the Committee of Concerned Judges in opposition to the mandatory 

form plan, which is that the notion of a mandatory form plan has 

never had consensus support among any group, including judges and 

trustees. Why is that? 

a. First, because the Working Group established under the aegis of 

the Committee never made an effort to develop a consensus, among 

the judges, trustees or bar, before embarking on this endeavor, they

now face the problem which they could have anticipated, i.e., a lot of 

work on a form which does not enjoy wide support. The grass roots 

effort at this juncture to make the Committee aware of the extent of 

opposition, is in part a function of the fact that the Working Group

did not face squarely at the outset the question whether the chapter 

13 constituents think such a major change would be beneficial.

b. Second, despite what the proponents suggest, chapter 13 works 

very well in the legal communities throughout this country, and most 

courts, including supporters and opponents of a mandatory plan, 

think that their local chapter 13 plan and processes work well for the 

needs of their debtors and creditors. To the extent there is 

inconsistency, it is a function of local and circuit judicial decisions and 

the preferences of local counsel, trustees and judges, borne of local 

culture, demographics and history. As an example, in Oregon from 
the outset of a form plan, plans rarely provide for paying ongoing 

residential mortgages through the trustee, so called conduit plans, 

while right across the river in Washington, virtually all plans require 

postpetition mortgage payments to be paid through the trustee if the 

mortgage is delinquent and have done so for over 25 years. Chapter 

13 works well in both jurisdictions, but not surprisingly works quite 

differently in the details. 

2. Lack of empirical support for mandating a form plan. Regardless 

of a lack of a consensus, is there some other compelling reason to 

undertake this wholesale change in how chapter 13 works? Are 

jurisdictions with form plans like the one being considered more 

successful in completing cases; or are cases with similar plans 

completed with a lot less fees and costs being incurred by debtors?

There is no empirical evidence supporting either of these 

propositions. 

The arguments in support of mandatory form plans are anecdotal 

and intuitive, not empirical. As trustee and now as judge, I examined 

the fees and costs of jurisdictions around the country. And what little 

evidence I did see regarding cost, suggested that form plans like the 

proposed mandatory form, which try to do a lot of things inside the 

plan, e.g., lien avoidances and secured claim modifications, was that 

they were often more expensive in terms of debtors' counsel fees. 

Specifically, the cost of debtor fees in the Portland Division where the 

plan is more similar to the mandatory form plan, is and has been on 

average one of the highest in the country, while in the Seattle 

Division where plan confirmation is not a contested matter, the fees 

are much more in the middle of the pack among trustees. 

3. Form plans do different things, and do them differently. 

a. Form plans are not a tabula rasa on which debtors get to craft 

whatever language and terms they choose. They have been crafted 

to funnel debtors into procedures, standard provisions and 

distribution schemes which have over time gained the acceptance of 

local courts and trustees. (This is not to say that a debtor cannot 
propose special provisions, but typically they must be included in a 

specially called out paragraph and are often objected to by trustees.) 

This is particularly true when it comes to dealing with maintenance 

of mortgage payments, one of the more complex and important 

parts of confirmation. 

Make no mistake. The proposed mandatory form plan is no different 

in trying to funnel debtors and courts into following certain processes 

for voiding liens, modifying claims and stripping off mortgages within 

the confirmation process. (Note: I would mention one major 

exception to this tendency. The change made by the Committee in 

the most recent iteration of the proposed form plan in Part 7 to allow 

a debtor to elect to give the trustee discretion regarding how to 

distribute plan payments to pay creditors would be a radical change. 

It arose I suspect out of the large volume of criticism laid at the prior 

version's distribution scheme paragraph. Giving the chapter 13 

trustee carte blanche authority to determine the distribution 

scheme, is largely unheard of among the current generation of form 

plans, and arguably may not be a legally permissible plan. It would 

not be welcomed by most trustees. And it is at the least not 

transparent to creditors.) 

b. The mandatory form plan reflects a policy choice that increases 

the complexity of the plan confirmation process by including lien 

avoidance, secured claim modification and lien stripping inside the 

confirmation process (the "kitchen sink"), as opposed to form plans 

which focus on getting the funds on hand with the trustee out to the 

creditors who the debtor wants to pay as soon as possible. The latter 

form plans do not have provisions for voiding liens or modifying

secured claims in the plan confirmation process. As a result, those 

plans do not need to be served as a contested matter under Rule 

7004. Issues like lien avoidance, secured claim modification and lien 

stripping, to the extent they apply, are left to be dealt with by motion 

as needed, but the confirmation process is spared of complexity and 

it is hoped results in a more expedited process. In turn, money is 

disbursed to creditors more quickly, avoiding disputes between 

creditors, debtors and the trustee. This is the approach adopted by 
Western Washington. It has less forms, less rules and less complexity 

compared to the District of Oregon. It is also, as I have noted, less 

expensive. 

Reasonable minds can differ whether one approach is preferable. But 

since the proponents offer no evidence or consensus that their 

approach is more expeditious or economical, we are left with 

opinion, anecdote and hypothesis for why all the courts in this 

country should have to adopt a form plan which funnels them into a 

kitchen sink approach.

4. The illusion of uniformity. The primary rationale for a mandatory 

form plan is that it will promote uniformity and consistency. But will 

it? Given the substantial and detailed criticism of the mandatory 

national form plan for its lack of detail regarding distribution 

schemes and conduit mortgages, to say nothing of the outright 

opposition to this mandatory form, is it not more likely that we will 

be seeing either form plan provisions crafted to implement local 

processes, and included by reference in Part 9, or local rules and 

general orders requiring certain distribution schemes and processes 

notwithstanding the national form plan? Will national creditors be 

any better off in terms of deciphering what a plan actually provides 

for treatment of its claim?

5. The national form plan bureaucracy. Making the adoption of 

form plans a national process guarantees that changes to said form 

will also be a slow process governed by a national committee 

working to compromise the various interests of constitutent groups 

in chapter 13, debtor, creditor, and trustee. The ability of local courts 

to promptly respond to new decisions within their court or circuit, or 

to other developments, will be lost if the process is governed by a 

national group whose proposed changes need to be vetted through 

the rule changing process.

Conclusion:
Adopting a mandatory form plan adds dubious value to the 

confirmation process for debtors but is likely to result in a substantial 

increase in cost to all bankruptcy constituencies. This is not 

dissimilar to the results of BAPCPA. For debtors it reduced many 

benefits of filing chapter 13 while increasing the administrative costs, 

e.g. financial counseling requirements, additional forms, and a 

complex projected disposable income calculation. Requiring local 

courts to sweep away effective local form plans and rewrite local 

rules to implement a new form plan and processes, is likely to 

produce the same problem. But unlike BAPCPA, a mandatory 

national form plan would be an entirely self-inflicted wound to 

chapter 13. The fact that 144 judges joined in a letter in letter in 

opposition, suggests that this concern is shared by a great many 

judges. 
TAB 3

Judge Marvin Isgur

Texas Southern Bankruptcy Court
To the Committee: 

 Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Committee regarding adoption of the 

proposed mandatory national plan. Although I have submitted letters to the Committee both as a 

judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas and as a member 

of the Committee of Concerned Bankruptcy Judges, I testify only in my individual capacity. 

 I am completing my eleventh year as a United States Bankruptcy Judge. Westlaw reports 

that I have issued over 125 chapter 13 opinions. I am a frequent speaker at local, regional and 

national bankruptcy conferences on issues concerning chapter 13 plans. For the past 10 years, I 

have served as a co-chair of a statewide consumer bankruptcy conference. 

 When Judge Lynch and I first discussed whether to send a joint letter, we did not know 

whether we were two of a handful of judges who opposed the mandatory national plan. We 

initially joined together with 7 others, drafted a letter, and then asked our friends whether they 

wished to join. It is fair to say that we remain startled that 144 judges signed a single letter in 

opposition to the adoption of this mandatory national plan. Many other judges informed us of 

their opposition to the proposed national plan, but chose not to join in the particulars of our 

letter. 

 Changes to the national bankruptcy system can be brought about by many factors. 

Statutory changes and major case law changes are the most obvious factors. Most recently, 

changes occasioned by the adoption of BAPCPA resulted in Herculean and successful efforts by 

this Committee to meet the challenges of the act. Those efforts were not only successful, the 

Committee enjoyed a broad consensus amongst bankruptcy judges that there was need for action. 

 The adoption of a mandatory national plan is not precipitated by a similar need. And, it 

is apparent—merely by the existence of 144 opposing judges—that there is no broad consensus 

for the adoption of a mandatory national plan. Even if the few judges who support such an 

adoption were to quadruple in number, there would be a complete absence of consensus. 

 In the absence of consensus, I have asked myself whether there is a compelling need for 

change that should overwhelm the absence of a consensus. Although I have searched for such a 

need, I have found none. To be sure, I have been told that some national creditors have 

difficulties dealing with the various plans in force around the country. But, I have seen no 

empirical evidence that this is a pervasive problem; that it is costly; that it leads to endemic 

mistakes in the decisions that we make. Surely, we need more than an occasional anecdotal 

complaint to make such a major change. 

 I have also been told that we should strive to have uniformity, and that all plans 

essentially do the same thing. If all plans did do the same thing, I would respect the benefits of 

uniformity. So, I decided to examine that question by looking at the form plan in my own 

district. I asked myself this question: “Are there provisions in our local form plan that are not 
implemented in the proposed mandatory national plan?” There were many, and I wish to 

highlight five of the most significant differences for the Committee: 

1. The local plan provides for an automatic adjustment of the payments to the 

Trustee as changes arise in a conduit mortgage. It adopts procedures that 

implement the adjustment. The mandatory plan has no provision to implement 

automatic changes in payments to the trustee. 

2. The local plan provides for adjusted priorities between adequate protection 

payments to car lenders, regular payments to car lenders, and the payment of 

attorney’s fees. The mandatory plan has no provision that would allow these 

shifting priorities. 

3. The local plan implements the adequate protection requirement of 

§ 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii). The mandatory plan does not implement the adequate 

protection provision. 

4. Our local plan includes a sources and uses of funds statement. The 

mandatory plan includes only a uses statement. 

5. The local plan has a trustee-administered emergency fund. The mandatory 

plan has no such provision. 

When I see how just one plan contains so many provisions that are not incorporated into 

the proposed mandatory national plan, I am forced to conclude that you are being asked to vote 

for uniformity at a very great cost, and on a false premise. Take the trustee-administered 

emergency savings fund as an example. This is a recent innovation in our local plan. Most 

bankruptcy judges will tell you that the biggest issue confronting us in chapter 13 cases is how to 

make plans more likely to succeed. Often, plans fail when debtors confront the routine financial 

emergencies that most of us can handle— the expense of repairing a broken down car used to get 

to work, the expenses associated with a death in the family, the work loss brought on by a short 

term illness. In many of these instances, an emergency fund could enable a family to survive the 

emergency without a chapter 13 failure. So, with the full cooperation of three fine chapter 13 

trustees, we have decided to experiment with a fee-free trustee administered savings fund. I 

cannot promise you that this will work, or meet its goals. But, should this Committee preclude 

opportunities for local courts to implement reforms that may help solve some of our most 

fundamental chapter 13 problems? I urge the Committee not to restrain innovation. 

I do wish to highlight two issues from the letters that I have joined in submitting. 

First, the forecast of the unknown consequences of the adoption of a mandatory chapter 

13 plan. The Committee of Concerned Bankruptcy Judges has highlighted a number of these 
concerns. I am aware that several judges believe that our concerns are overstated. There is room 

for honest disagreement on these issues. I suspect that most of this disagreement comes from our 

differing experiences in life and on the bench. 

The issue that most concerns me is whether national debtor firms will supplant the fine 

work that is undertaken every day by our local bankruptcy lawyers. My district has had very 

distasteful experiences with national mortgage firms. In one instance, we learned that the 

national mortgage firms were hiring local lawyers, but the local lawyers were prohibited from 

direct client contact. This led to poor work, unresponsive results, and huge costs inflicted on the 

bankruptcy system. I had the opportunity to review one of the letters sent in support of the 

national plan that seems to dismiss this very grave concern that I have. Although the national 

firm that I am referencing has offices in only six metropolitan areas, a disproportionate number 

of the judges signing that letter were from those areas. Of course, in those areas, the national 

mortgage firm would not have used local counsel. Those judges would have had different 

experiences from the bench than those of us that had to deal with local counsel retained by the 

national firm. I ask that the Committee consider the combined wisdom of my 143 colleagues in 

considering the potential that the Committee could be inflicting significant harm. 

Second, I wish to focus on the many individualized problems with this form plan. In 

light of the overwhelming opposition to this plan, I do not suggest that the currently proposed 

plan be tweaked, and then made mandatory. However, if the Committee decides that it would be 

prudent to adopt a non-mandatory, model plan, this one is not ready for national use. In my 

district’s letter, we highlight a number of problems in the plan. These problems really came to 

light when we looked at the sample form plan that was circulated by the Committee. I recognize 

that many of these consequences were not intended, but the completed sample plan would cause 

lenders to lose liens, result in no distributions to unsecured creditors, and derogate judicial 

responsibilities to the chapter 13 trustees. 

Although I will not repeat the contents of that letter, please allow me to focus on that 

final issue. In my district, we are fortunate to have three fine chapter 13 trustees. If we tell them 

to utilize their best judgment in the allocation of priorities between claimants, they will do so 

diligently and competently. But, their competence begs the question of my responsibility. 

Claimants are entitled to a judicial determination of the correct priority of payments. The 

example that we gave is a simple one: a debtor’s lawyer contacts the trustee and demands a first 

priority of payment pursuant to § 1326(b)(1). That section provides that “before or at the time of 

each payment to creditors under the plan, there shall be paid ... any unpaid claim of the kind 

specified in section 507(a)(2) of this title...” Section 507(a)(2) provides for the payment of fees 

to debtor’s counsel. Assume that the trustee agrees and uses all available funds to pay debtor’s 

counsel, and that neither the car lender nor the home mortgage lender are paid until the payments 

to counsel are completed. What remedy do those secured creditors have? I suggest that there 

would be no remedy. The mandatory national plan was followed because the debtor made her 

required payment, and the trustee distributed it according to the trustee’s best judgment. It is 
certainly not a plan default. The creditors may not move to modify the plan, because they are 

secured creditors. Only unsecured creditors, the trustee or the debtor may seek a modification. 

11 U.S.C. § 1329(a). Why would we, as judges, avoid our responsibility to make such a hard 

call? Unfortunately, I believe that the drafters of the mandatory national plan were trying to 

propose something that would work across a myriad of priority case law around the country. 

That emphasizes why uniformity will not work. This has been an area of great concern, but no 

workable national solution has been found. 

The concept of a mandatory national chapter 13 plan sounds laudable. In practice, it is 

not needed, it will not work, and it will place our chapter 13 system at great risk. I urge the 

Committee to heed the advice of my 143 colleagues and decline to adopt a mandatory national 

plan. 
TAB 4

Karen Cordry, Esq.

States’ Association of Bankruptcy Attorneys -

SABA
 P.O. Box 262, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0262

STATES’ ASSOCIATION OF BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS

Officers

President

Fred Rudzik

Florida Department of Revenue

Vice President

Lynn Hamilton Butler

Husch Blackwell, LLP

Secretary

Kim Davis

Montana Department of Revenue

Treasurer

Karen Cordry

National Assn. of Attorney’s General

Immediate Past President

James C. Jacobsen

New Mexico Attorney General’s Office

Jay D. Befort

Befort & Befort, P.A.

Tracy S. Essig

Law Office of Tracy Essig PLC

Gill Geldreich

Tennessee Ofc. of the Attorney General

Maureen F. Leary

New York Ofc. of the Attorney General 

Zachary Mosner

Washington Ofc. of the Attorney Gen.

James Newbold

Illinois Ofc. of the Attorney Gen.

Margarita Padilla

California Ofc. of the Attorney General

Allen Rosenberg

Massachusetts Department of Revenue

Donn D. Rosenblum

Ohio Ofc. of the Attorney General

Esther E. Tryban Telser

City of Chicago

January 16, 2015

TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF STATES’ ASSOCIATION OF

BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED

RULE PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM CHAPTER 13 PLAN

My name is Karen Cordry, I am the Bankruptcy Counsel for the 

National Association of Attorneys General. I am appearing here today on 

behalf of the States’ Association of Bankruptcy Attorneys of SABA, which 

is a group of staff-level counsel working for the States and a number of 

localities, who have bankruptcy issues as one of their areas of 

responsibility. As such, they have to deal very concretely with the 

complexities of the Code and the Rules on a day to day basis. I would like 

to express on behalf of SABA our appreciation for being allowed to appear 

and speak at this hearing.

We are, as regards this proposed rule, what one might call an 

“early adopter.” We wrote to this committee almost exactly four years ago 

urging the adoption of a national uniform plan. Our reasons for supporting 

such a plan then are equally applicable today and we commend the work of 

this Committee in moving from a concept to an actual document and the 

related rules. 

In a world without resource constraints, debtors could write their 

own perfect plans, creditors could review each document and judges, 

Chapter 13 trustees, and the U.S. trustee would be additional sets of 

reviewing eyes. In reality, even with the marked drop off in filings in 

recent years, the 313,000 Chapter 13 cases filed in the year ending 

September 30, 2014 are close to the total number of filings for all other 

federal civil and criminal cases combined. (That total was 375,000 in the 

year ending September 2013,which is the most recent statistics available). 

Each filing generated dozens of docket entries or more, only a few 

of which may be relevant to a given creditor. At the same time, the dollars 

at stake in each case are relatively small and the likelihood of recovering 

any meaningful percentage of those claims is very low for most unsecured 

creditors. Thus, there is very little margin available for creditors to spend 

on reviewing documents to find those that they must actually consider. 

The laws and rules for handling that case volume should be 1) 

clear and unambiguous, 2) predictable, 3) transparent, and 4) strictly 

enforced. Ideally, they should allow one to provide simple guidelines that 

even the newly-hired, minimum wage employees in the mail room can 

utilize. One value of an adversary proceeding, for instance, is that those 

employees can be told “If our name is in the caption on the front page, the 

attorney needs to see the document.” By the same token, a student loan 

creditor could have thought that, since the Rules required an adversary 

proceeding to discharge their debts, the attorney could have passed up the 

chance to review the precise payment terms of a plan. And, in an ideal 

world, creditors could assume that those requirements would be strictly 

enforced.

The Supreme Court made clear in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. 

v. Espinosa, 130 S.Ct. 1367 (2009), though, that creditors have no such 

protection. Even plan provisions that blatantly violate the Rules or the 
 P.O. Box 262, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0262

Code will still be enforceable against creditors if they do not find them before the plan is confirmed. That ruling is 

perhaps the single most important reason why a uniform national plan is required.

If creditors must discover every place where a plan violates the Rules or the Code, and must do so with the resource 

constraints of time that exist in Chapter 13, the only practical alternative is for there to be a single uniform plan that 

allows them to quickly – and reliably – find out how their claim is being treated. We do not allow individual tax payers 

to write up their own tax return forms and then dare the IRS to find the mistakes. No more should creditors have to

search through thousands of unique plan drafts to try to find where and how they are treated.

That principle does appear to have been recognized in virtually every district over the last decade. The 

existence of 100 or more separate uniform plans, though, while certainly a step forward is still only marginally better for 

creditors that must operate in more than one district. While we recognize that there is significant “pride of authorship” 

with respect to each of those plans, and some reluctance for courts that have gone through that process to face the 

thought of adjusting to a new form, the needs of parties (primarily, but not uniquely creditors) that operate in more than 

one district must be recognized.1 For those parties, learning a new form is not a one-time job after a national rule is 

adopted. Instead, they must learn the process from scratch in every new district.

There are many areas of the law where it does not matter what the rule is as long as there is one rule that 

everyone knows. The concept of a uniform national plan is like that – it does not matter if secured claims are treated in 

Part 3 or Part 7, as long as everyone knows where to look. Having to hunt anew through each plan and hope that one has 

found all of the relevant provisions leaves all of the problems that led to Espinosa and that a uniform plan is meant to 

avoid. Even if a given district feels that its plan might be the “best” one available, we strongly urge this group to adhere

to the old maxim that the perfect should not be allowed to be the enemy of the good. 

According to the Constitution, Congress must establish “uniform laws” of bankruptcy – at the least that should 

encompass the use of a uniform national Chapter 13 plan. The States uniquely understand the importance of the word 

“uniform,” since the Supreme Court has held that its inclusion in the Bankruptcy Clause was enough, standing alone, to 

prove that, unlike all of Congress’ other powers, the States agreed to waive their sovereign immunity with respect to 

bankruptcy cases. While the States beg to differ on that point, at the very least, if they did agree to a waiver, the 

bankruptcy system should return the favor by acting in a uniform fashion.

So, our most fundamental point in today’s testimony is to underscore the need for a uniform plan and to urge 

that the process of approving that plan be completed expeditiously. That plan will not be carved in stone; it may well 

need tweaking as time goes by but the best way to see what changes should be made is to implement the current draft or 

something similar and let it start to play out in the real world so any needed tweaks will become apparent.

That said, as to the specifics, we do have a number of broad concerns. We will be submitting more detailed 

comments by the deadline and we have seen prior comments by the IRS that we largely support as well. But at this 

point, I would like to emphasize certain overarching concerns.

1. Admissions and Local Counsel: I would be remiss if I did not mention a related topic, namely a 

uniform national rule on pro hac admissions and use of local counsel by governmental entities. Most districts provide 

easy access for non-local federal attorneys even though the federal government has offices all over the country and can 

fairly readily supply a local counsel. Those rules, though, often do not apply to other governmental entities even though 

they do not have the same structure. We believe this is an area that is long past due for reform and we again urge the 

Committee to consider how bankruptcy can be made less onerous for those who have been dragged into a forum 

hundreds or thousands of miles away through no choice of their own– just so they can then confront wildly varying 

Chapter 13 plans!

2. Plan Order: As to those plans, the first change we suggest, and the most critical, is to add in a draft 

 

1

One software vendor offers separate plans for each of 3 divisions in Florida’s Middle District, 4 for 

divisions in Ohio’s Northern District, 6 for divisions in Texas’ Western District, and 4 plans for California’s Northern 

District (apparently applicable by judge and not by division), as well as other plans for virtually every other district in the 

country. Each of those separate plans, notably, comes at a cost of $150 to $300 a piece. Thus, even debtors’ counsel can 

bear a significant financial burden if they operate in more than one district.
 P.O. Box 262, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0262

uniform Chapter 13 plan confirmation order that contains a provision stating words to the effect of “This order does not

approve any provision in the plan that fails to conform with the requirements of Rule 3015(c) and the limitations stated 

in Part 1 of the Plan [see point 4 below].” Rule 3015(c) attempts to deal with this issue and we have suggested language 

to make it somewhat stronger but, in reality, anything included in the Rule misses the point. A plan provision that 

ignores that part of the Rules is not necessarily any less binding under Espinosa than any other violative plan provision. 

The court order must itself state that it is not approving any plan provision that does not follow the Rules.

3. Spelling Out the Practical Aspects: The Rules do resolve a great many long-standing debates, 

particularly as regards stating whether a plan provision or a claim “controls.” It does not, though, give any explanation 

as to what it means to say that the “claim” controls. There is no mechanism or timing spelled out for how or when the 

debtor’s proposed plan must be modified so that its terms match up with the claims that are “controlling.” This is 

particularly problematic for government claims that often not be filed until after the plan is confirmed. When and how 

will the plan be modified and when will there be an appraisal as to whether the plan is still feasible. These are just 

mechanical issues but they should be spelled out in the Rules so there is not more litigation about how to implement 

these policy choices. We will have a number of specific suggestions in our detailed comments.

4. Creating Default Options: The most common substantive concerns with the proposed Model Plan 

appears to come from districts that have made choices on several of the perennial controversies in Chapter 13 and do not 

wish to have the plan reopen those issues. The Plan’s drafters have attempted to address that by noting in Part 1 that 

debtors should be aware that local rules may constrain choices that might appear to be open under the Model Plan 

language, and by allowing nonstandard provisions to be used if they are separately noted. While those provisions help, 

we would suggest that there is more that can be done to accommodate the divergent views while still maintaining the 

basic structure of uniformity. Specifically, we would suggest that the drafters pick out the three or four recurring areas 

of concern (such as whether all payments must be made by the trustee, whether the debtor must submit payments via a 

wage withholding order, etc.) and allow a local district-wide choice on those (and only those) options. That district-wide 

option can be implemented in different ways. 

- One would be to leave the plan as is, but to provide that districts may use a local rule (with, 

preferably a uniform rule number so it can be readily found by anyone coming to that district) that 

states the local choice on those options and have Part 1 of the Plan state that any filer must refer to and 

abide by that local rule without the option for making a non-standard choice on those points. 

- A second way (which we expect could be readily implemented with the assistance of the 

software developers) would be to have an electronic version of the plan that asks for the local option 

choices for those provisions (as set out in the local rule) to be input when the plan is begun and, after 

that is done, only shows appropriate options for that district will be shown on screen. The other option 

could be grayed out or it could be suppressed entirely. Again, this would be accompanied by language 

in Part 1 providing that, as to districts that opt to make and enforce those choices, nonstandard 

provisions on those topics are not allowed. That language, in turn, would be enforced by the provision 

in the Plan confirmation order that does not approve provisions that violate these Part 1 limitations.

SABA believes that this would go very far towards eliminating many of the concerns expressed by the districts 

that believe they have reached the best resolution on these points and that the decisions have become known to and 

accepted by the local bar. Conversely, while an absolutely uniform plan would be the most desirable option for nonlocal parties, it should not be that difficult for them to cope with a limited number of local default options, at least so 

long as those options are clearly defined and there is also a clearly defined place in the local rules where one can go to 

see what the district has chosen to do. 

We hope this suggestion would be the last step necessary to allow all parties to agree to the wisdom of working 

on a single plan that can be “beta tested” and improved by the entire bankruptcy community. The basics of Chapter 13 

are the same in every district; this project should be a way to make life easier for everyone after the initial break-in 

period.

Thank you for your consideration of our suggestions. 
TAB 5

Mike Bates, Esq.

Wells Fargo Law Department
Scott:

I am sending you this email to confirm that I will be unable to submit any written testimony in 

advance of the hearing on January 23rd. Although I will not be submitting any written 

testimony, my comments will address the following:

1. Wells Fargo’s overall support for the proposed national chapter 13 form plan and the 

proposed, and associated, amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 

(FRBP).

2. Wells Fargo’s recommendation that the Form Plan and associated amendments to the 

FRBP be adopted as an integrated package. 

3. Wells Fargo’s recommendation that the Committee consider:

 Adding a sentence to the introductory language in Part 3.1 of the Form Plan that 

explicitly provides that any debt provided for in Part 3.1 is a debt provided for in the 

plan, regardless of whether it is paid through the trustee or directly by the debtor.

 Adding a checkbox to Part 3.1 of the Form Plan to designate whether encumbered real 

property constitutes a debtor’s principal residence.

 Revising the language in Part 3.5 of the Form Plan to directly state that, upon 

January 23rd Bankruptcy Rules Advisory Committee Hearing 

Mike.T.Bates 

to: 

Scott_Myers 

01/15/2015 04:24 PM 

Cc: 

Frances_Skillman, Jonathan_Rose 

Hide Details 

From: <Mike.T.Bates@wellsfargo.com> 

To: <Scott_Myers@ao.uscourts.gov> 

Cc: <Frances_Skillman@ao.uscourts.gov>, <Jonathan_Rose@ao.uscourts.gov>

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Users\skillmanf\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\~web8998.htm 1/15/2015
confirmation of the plan, the stay and co-debtor stay are lifted as to any in rem rights a 

lender might have with respect to property surrendered in the Plan.

 Modifying FRBP 3015(c) to limit the type of non-standard provision that may be 

included in the Form Plan as a nonstandard provision when that non-standard provision 

deviates from the express language of the Form Plan. 

 Adding an Advisory Committee Note to FRBP 3002 that clarifies that the obligation of a 

secured creditor to file a proof of claim applies even in cases in which the debtor intends 

to surrender the property.

 Making two minor revisions in the Instructions for Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment 

(Official Form 410A). The suggested revisions are to Part 2 (page 269 of the materials 

published for comment) and Part 4 (page 270 of the materials published for comment).

I appreciate the invitation to testify before the Committee and look forward to seeing you next 

Friday. In the interim, please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks. 

Mike Bates 

Senior Company Counsel 

Wells Fargo Law Department 

(515) 557-1358 

(515) 557-8209 - fax 

MAC# N0001-09A

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee, or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you 

must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in 

error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.

  

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Users\skillmanf\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\~web8998.htm 1/15/2015
TAB 6

Alane A. Becket, Esq.

Becket & Lee LLP
Written Testimony of Alane A. Becket in advance of the hearing before the 

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules on the proposed amendments to the 

Bankruptcy Rules and Forms on January 23, 2015.

Introduction

My name is Alane Becket and I am managing partner with the law firm of Becket 

& Lee LLP in Malvern, Pennsylvania. For almost 30 years, Becket & Lee has 

specialized in the nationwide representation of large issuers of consumer credit and 

more recently, purchasers of consumer accounts in bankruptcy matters. I have 

been in practice since 1992 and have extensive experience with the operational and 

legal challenges faced by large lenders managing and monitoring consumer 

bankruptcy cases. In February, 2010, I had the opportunity to testify before this 

Committee regarding amendments to Rule 3001, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to address you again. 

My testimony relates primarily to my Firm’s interest in the implementation of an 

Official Form for chapter 13 plans. Our experience managing large portfolios of 

unsecured accounts leads us to conclude that a standard form for chapter 13 plans 

is an important step in protecting the rights of both creditors and debtors.

The Current Chapter 13 Environment

Unlike the current environment of local chapter 13 practice and “culture,” 

consumer lending and banking are no longer local endeavors. Many consumers 

obtain their car loans, mortgages, and credit cards after comparison shopping on 

the internet. The lender is often in a distant location. Regional and national banks 

issue far more credit cards than local banks, and many local banks issue their credit 

accounts through national banks. Most of these major lenders have customers in 

every state.

Currently, there are dozens of chapter 13 plans in use throughout the country and 

some estimate that there are at least 200 forms of plans. In addition, there are 

some jurisdictions where there is no “standard” form for plans, and thus “anything 

goes.” I have copies of many of these variations if the Committee would like them 

submitted; however, I don’t think this point is in dispute. Changes to local plan 
forms are assimilated into our Firm’s practices on an “as discovered” basis, as 

there is no formalized process for communicating changes in plan forms to 

creditors. As an experienced representative of unsecured creditors, our Firm has 

developed procedures for reviewing the myriad plan types; however, because of 

the lack of uniformity, this type of review is largely a manual and time consuming 

process. 

Necessity for Creditors to Review Plans

As this Committee knows, confirmation of a plan is binding on all parties, even if 

the plan contains impermissible provisions (sometimes referred to as “illegal” 

provisions); thus, it is imperative that creditors have an opportunity to review 

plans. Review of each and every chapter 13 plan is especially critical for secured 

lenders, who must scour each plan searching for the appropriate section wherein 

their claim’s treatment can be found, while also reviewing the rest of the plan for 

any provisions that might affect the claim or the collateral. Standardization of the 

format for plans is a fair and reasonable way to address the needs and rights of 

creditors, while still affording debtors all of the protections to which they are 

entitled, and adding a measure of uniformity to a process that has been the subject 

of much diversity. 

Unsecured creditors, who are the main focus of my practice, are, generally 

speaking, at the bottom of the payment distribution scheme. Because of the small 

percentage of repayment that unsecured creditors typically receive from their 

claims in chapter 13 cases, it is both necessary and fair that they have a costeffective way to review bankruptcy case information, especially in light of the very 

high dismissal rate, which results in wasted efforts to review plans that are 

ultimately not confirmed or are not completed.

The Benefit of Electronic Access

Over the past decade, the advent of electronic bankruptcy notices and electronic 

payment vouchers, as well as access to bankruptcy databases and PACER, have

made the review and monitoring of bankruptcy cases significantly more efficient

and economical. A mandatory Official Form for chapter 13 plans is another step 

forward in providing creditors a more efficient means to review chapter 13 cases. 

This is especially true in light of the proposed changes to Bankruptcy Rule 
3002(c), which will reduce the time for non-governmental claims to be filed by 

approximately half, to 60 days after the filing of the petition in most cases. 

Looking ahead, while today it may not be cost-effective for an unsecured creditor 

to review each and every chapter 13 plan, a standard form for chapter 13 plans 

would allow all parties—the courts, trustees and creditors especially—to take 

advantage of technology through the integration of data-enabling to court filings. 

Information from plans could be quickly communicated to creditors, making it 

easier to manage the condensed timeline and other notifications that are a part of 

the proposed rules accompanying the form. The cost of mailing plans would be 

reduced, if not eliminated. While we acknowledge that data-enabling is not a part 

of the Committee’s proposals at this time, the process will never advance to that 

stage unless we take the first steps towards standardization of formats.

Opposition to the Form – Non-Standard Plan Provisions

The November 18, 2014 letter from Committee of Concerned Bankruptcy Judges 

to the Rules Committee suggests that there is no need for, nor benefit to, an 

Official Form for chapter 13 plans. I respectfully disagree. As has been noted, 

there is a tremendous benefit to all creditors to be able to efficiently review claim 

treatment in a chapter 13 case, and to know where to look for non-standard plan 

provisions that may affect claims. 

No case more aptly demonstrates this benefit than UNITED STUDENT AID 

FUNDS, INC. v. ESPINOSA, 559 U.S. 260 (2010). In Espinosa, the Supreme 

Court was faced with a plan that improperly sought to discharge a portion of an 

otherwise non-dischargeable student loan. The creditor, relying on the required 

statutory and rule-based provisions requiring an adversary proceeding and judicial 

determination of undue hardship, did not object to confirmation of the plan. While 

ultimately ruling that the creditor was bound by the finality of the un-appealed 

order confirming the plan, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its ruling had the 

potential to encourage the inclusion of improper provisions in plans – subject to the 

potential for sanctions for doing so.

Because there is no Official Form for chapter 13 plans, the issue faced by the 

creditor in Espinosa was a not uncommon occurrence as creditors were sometimes 

blindsided by provisions in plans affecting their claims. While the Supreme 
Court’s ruling was a cautionary tale for debtor attorneys, variations in plan detail, 

format, and treatment of claims continue to plague creditors. 

Part 9 of the proposed form, where “non-standard provisions” will be found, serves

an important purpose in this regard. Having any “non-standard provisions” in the 

same location on every plan, along with the accompanying “check box” on page 1

of the form, will not only facilitate identification of those provisions, but will 

protect debtors who comply with the notification requirements from due process 

attacks on the plan. I might also suggest that the check box on page 1 be enhanced 

to indicate whether the non-standard provision applies to secured or unsecured 

creditors. 

A section for non-standard provisions should also satisfy those who worry that 

certain provisions critical to the operation of chapter 13 in their jurisdiction are not 

included in the form. Any provision not otherwise in contradiction to the form or 

the law can be implemented through this section of the form. However, the 

Committee should make clear that Part 9 should not be used to circumvent the use 

or operation of the proposed form and that “deviations” from the form as permitted 

by proposed Rule 3015(c) should not be used to supplant the form.

Consumer lenders are more heavily regulated than ever and are expected to 

maintain accurate and up-to-date records regarding consumer accounts. The ability 

to review and monitor claims in bankruptcy is a benefit for creditors, a benefit to

the bankruptcy system and helps bring transparency to the bankruptcy 

process. Improvements in process and technology will also allow educators to 

more easily compile the information so that Congress has an objective view of the 

chapter 13 bankruptcy landscape the next time legislation is contemplated. We 

believe the overall benefits from having standardization in the format for similar 

activities, such as chapter 13 plans, will outweigh any short term pain. Our 

experience with the implementation of the means test and accompanying form and 

rule changes is a good example of how imposition of new process, while 

potentially causing short-term disruption to established procedure, eventually 

becomes accepted as the norm.
The Proposed Official Form and Proposed Rule Amendments as a Package

Finally, changes to proposed Rule 3105 account for the possibility that the rule 

may go into effect without the accompanying form. “If there is an Official Form 

for a plan filed in a chapter 13 case, that form must be used.”

The Chair of this Committee’s memo to the Standing Committee of May 6, 2014, 

indicates that the Committee has considered whether the proposed form and rules 

should be adopted as an integrated package. We strongly oppose the adoption of 

the rules, most importantly, Rules 3002(c), 3012 and 3015(g), without the 

accompanying Official Form for plans. 

Allowing requests to determine secured and priority claims in a plan, and the 

binding effect of that treatment via Rule 3015 is only fair and practical if a 

standardized form is implemented which would allow creditors to easily find and 

evaluate treatment. Moreover, imposing a new 60 day deadline for filing of proofs 

of claims will be burdensome for many creditors. This burden is somewhat offset 

by the benefits of having a more standardized form for chapter 13 plans for 

creditors to review. By unbundling the form from the rules, creditors will be 

shouldering all of the burden of a shorter POC deadline and the threat of having 

collateral valued through a plan provision, without any corresponding benefit.

Thank you for considering these comments.
TAB 7

Ronda Winnecour, Esq.

Chapter 13 Standing Trustee,

Western District of Pennsylvania
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY RULES

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite k7-240

Washington, D.C. 20544

Dear Committee,

I am Ronda Winnecour, the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Pennsylvania. I am 

writing to support the proposed Official Form for the Chapter 13 Plan and the related changes in the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

I chaired the first program on the Official Form Plan for the National Association of Chapter13 Trustees 

in January of 2013, and I wrote the first article about the proposed Form and Rules for ABI in February of 

2013. Ronda J. Winnecour, New Form Plan May Nationalize Chapter 13 Practice, Am. Bankr. Inst. J., Feb. 

2013, at 22-23, 77.

Initially, I was opposed to the Official Form. Like many Trustees, I believed a mandatory form for the 

Chapter 13 plan would be fine only if it was my plan form. I was wrong. I have participated in many 

discussions and programs throughout the country, and I am now convinced that a uniform Chapter 13 

plan is necessary.

Judge Wedoff and other members of the Advisory Committee met with Chapter 13 trustees on many 

occasions and listened to our concerns and recommendations. I attended several of those meetings and

was amazed at how receptive this Committee was to changes and suggestions. Every significant change 

recommended by the Chapter 13 trustees who attended those meetings has been incorporated into the 

present version of the form. I listened to the arguments in favor of the plan and also the vocal 

opposition. I realized that the only real argument made by those who oppose an official form is that it 

will be a change. And no one, especially Chapter 13 Trustees, wants change. 

There are presently over 200 form plans in the United States. Many districts have several suggested 

forms, some have none at all, and the result is a chaotic body of case law based on local practice and 

custom. 

My district, the Western District of Pennsylvania, has a mandatory plan form not dissimilar to the

proposed Official Form. Our form has been required for fifteen years. Because the plan is used in every 

case, my staff is able to enter the plan terms into our computer system with consistency. This 

consistency is not available or comes at a much higher price in jurisdictions that use multiple (or no) 

forms. 
Uniformity is a huge advantage to creditors, debtors, and debtor’s attorneys, especially those who 

practice in more than one district. Further, the Trustees and Courts will have the benefit of a national 

body of case law and procedure. 

As envisioned, the single greatest strength of the Official Form is that it will be data enabled. National 

creditors will be able to electronically upload their proposed treatment in every plan. This will reduce 

errors and decrease litigation costs. And Chapter 13 Trustees will be able to electronically input all of 

the data into their software. This will save significant administrative time. My staff will still alert the 

problems and errors with the debtor’s proposed terms so that I can object to confirmation or resolve 

problems by proposing a corrective confirmation order. I have discussed this feature with the largest 

software provider for Chapter 13 Trustees; he believes that most Trustees will be able to absorb the 

entire plan into their administrative systems. 

I am surprised by the vehemence of the opposition to the plan. The plan doesn’t control outcomes; the 

confirmation order controls the outcome. Nothing stops the Trustee from objecting to terms that do 

not comply with local procedures or case law. And the Court can easily rectify any inconsistency in the 

order granting or denying plan confirmation, as well as providing local rules that clarify and incorporate

local practice. 

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the proposed changes to the rules. They will simplify and 

unify Chapter 13 practice and eliminate unproductive litigation. 

Specifically with regard to the current version of the proposed Official Form:

1. With regard to Section 3.1, I suggest that the provision stating “If relief from the automatic stay 

is ordered as to any item of collateral listed in this paragraph, then, unless otherwise ordered by 

the court, all payments under this paragraph as to that collateral will cease...” should be 

amended to state “will cease as soon as practicable.” There is a very real possibility that the 

Court will enter an order granting relief from stay during the Trustee’s monthly distribution, 

overlapping disbursement to the affected creditor.

2. With regard to Section 3.5 concerning surrendered collateral, the second provision (allowing 

surrender) should contain the following sentence: “Surrender does not constitute 

abandonment of any interest of the estate in the collateral.” 

3. With regard to Part 4 concerning the Treatment of Trustee’s Fees and Priority Claims there 

should be spaces allocated under Section 4.4 for the identification and amounts to be paid to 

unsecured priority creditors. 

4. With regard to Part 10: Signatures, I recommend that the debtors be required to sign the plan 

even if represented by counsel. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment and again, endorse the Uniform Plan and the 

proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Respectfully submitted:

Ronda Winnecour, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Pennsylvania