Court Opinion

ID: 9690870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:49:31.275935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:05.623475
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree with the outcome in this case and join part III, I disagree with the approach taken by the majority in parts I and II.
As to part I of the opinion, I would hold that the § 1322(b)(1) “however” clause merely qualifies, rather than preempts, the fairness analysis. I would, therefore, reverse and remand to allow the trial court to determine whether the discrimination is unfair.
As to part II of the opinion, I agree with the majority’s initial substantive paragraph:
The § 1322(b)(1) “however” clause does not apply in a particular case unless three essential elements exist: there must be “consumer debt” that is “consumer debt of the debtor” and as to which there is “an individual [who] is liable on such consumer debt with the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1).
I agree with the majority that the debt- or has not carried her burden of proof on any of the three elements of § 1322(b)(1). I would stop the analysis at that point. On remand, the debtor may be able to present *556sufficient evidence to establish the three elements. If so, it would be important for the panel to have decided the issue discussed in part I to give the trial court guidance in determining whether the particular discrimination is unfair.