Opinion ID: 150455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-Marrama Decisions

Text: The effect of the Marrama decision on § 1307(b) has been the focus of numerous bankruptcy court opinions. Within our circuit, two post-Marrama bankruptcy courts have arrived at opposite results regarding the existence of a bad-faith exception to § 1307(b). Compare In re Polly, 392 B.R. 236, 246–48 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2008) (distinguishing Marrama and concluding that the Chapter 13 debtor possessed an absolute right to dismiss) with In re Jacobsen, 378 B.R. at 810–11 (reaching the opposite conclusion).12 Beyond the borders of 12 As the In re Polly court noted, “courts in the Fifth Circuit have almost uniformly adopted th[e] view” “that, in the face of a motion to convert under section 1307(c), the right of 14 No. 09-40023 our circuit, the lower courts have been similarly divided.13 In addition to decisions by bankruptcy courts, the Ninth Circuit considered the effects of Marrama in its 2008 decision in In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764. Rosson, the Chapter 13 debtor, had been ordered by the bankruptcy court to deliver the proceeds from an arbitration award to the Chapter 13 Trustee. Id. at 768. When Rosson failed to do so, the bankruptcy court chose to sua sponte convert the case to Chapter 7. After that decision but before a formal conversion order had been filed, Rosson sought to dismiss his case under § 1307(b). Id. When the bankruptcy court denied Rosson’s request and converted to Chapter 7, Rosson appealed, citing In re Beatty, 162 B.R. 853, a decision by the BAP for the Ninth Circuit holding that the right to dismiss under § 1307(b) is absolute. Id. at 768–79. a debtor to dismiss under section 1307(b) is not absolute.” 392 B.R. at 241 (citing In re Foster, 945 F.2d 400; In re Cobb, No. 99–3193, 2000 WL 17840 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2000); In re Jacobsen, 378 B.R. 805; In re Fonke, 310 B.R. 809 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2004); In re Crowell, 292