COMMENTS OF THE NACBA
e.
f.
g.
2 plans allowed specifying: “$____”, a dollar dividend
33 plans specified or allowed specifying: “____%”, a percent of allowed
claims filed dividend
Only 4 plans allowed the debtor to specify the method for determining the
dividend on general unsecured claims
The widespread use of “funds left over after …” and “no less than” provisions creates a serious
problem for Chapter 13 debtors, as documented by NACBA’s survey. Even though a debtor
may be absolutely entitled to propose a plan with no dividend for general unsecured claims, if
the mandatory plan contains these provisions, the plan will almost inevitably pay dividends – if
only accidentally – on general unsecured claims. And, in many cases, the Chapter 13 Trustee is
allowed to increase this dividend at his/her whim. The same argument applies when the PDI or
BIOC tests result in a calculated dollar amount that must be paid on general unsecured claims.
In these plans, this calculated amount is merely the starting point, from which the dividend is
allowed to grow – despite not being required by law.
In addition, many plans provide a hard-wired calculation of trustee’s fees at 10%, a level which
is permitted but not often utilized. Since the actual trustee’s fees are often considerably less than
10%, this provision frequently produces a surplus that “waterfalls” to the general unsecured
creditors even though the debtor is not required to pay them anything. These plans prevent the
debtor from proposing a plan that the debtor desires, is entitled to, and without which his/her
basic bankruptcy rights are seriously abridged. The majority of local plans currently mandated
include these various damaging provisions that also have the effect of enlarging creditors’ rights
in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2075.
NACBA’s members reported the devastating results of mandatory plans of this nature. Of the 52
respondents who reported that nearly all of their chapter 13 cases were required to pay dividends
on general unsecured claims (95-100% of their chapter 13 cases), most of them reported that
large numbers of these cases would not be required to pay any dividend for general unsecured
claims because they passed both the PDI and BIOC tests. In fact, 58% of these respondents said
that at least half of their cases would not have to pay any dividend at all, based upon the PDI and
BIOC tests. And, 21% of the 52 respondents said that at least 90% of their cases would not have
to pay any dividend at all, based upon the PDI and BIOC tests.
These disturbing discrepancies are most likely due to the trickle-down diversion of the overestimated trustees’ fees required by the plan to be paid by the debtor, or simply a long-standing
policy of individual judges and trustees to demand a certain dividend in all cases.
The widespread systemic effect of plan provisions specifying dividends on general unsecured
claims in mandated local plans across the board abridges debtors’ rights and enlarges creditors’
16
CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY JOURNAL
Winter 2016
8
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys