COMMENTS OF THE NACBA
bar for any committee that is formed to
advise the court in the development of
a Local Form. Note also, that including
representation from the consumer
bar on a committee is just the first
step in assuring that debtors’ rights
are protected in the drafting of a local
model plan. See paragraph 7 below,
Development of Local Model Plans,
addressing the results of NACBA’s
recent survey.
seven months (assuming the Supreme
Court can promulgate the rules by May
1, 2017).
NACBA is also concerned that the
Review of Content of Existing Local
Model Plans
NACBA suggests that districts that
have decided to opt out and indicate
that additional time is needed should
be given an additional six months,
until June 1, 2018, in which they would
have the option to continue using any
existing local model chapter 13 plan.
posted on bankruptcy court websites
or the authorized trustees’ sites, 90
of them are mandatory in all chapter
13 cases filed. Five jurisdictions
have no model plans, and four have
recommended – but not actually
mandated – model plans. The model
plans make up 643 pages, which are
attached hereto as pdfs in three parts.
Several bankruptcy courts are now in
the process of updating their existing
model plans or adopting model plans
for the first time, so these numbers are
in transition.
1. Length of model plans
The model plans ranged in
length from a single page to
more than 16 pages (much
of which is single-spaced
text). Plans with font size
approximating 10 points
were the easiest to read:
larger fonts diminished the
data density too much, and
some of the plans used
fonts that were so small
they were very difficult to
read. It is important to note
that the longer the text in the
plan, the less likely it is that
the debtor or the creditor
will have the patience or
attention to read more
than the first page or two.
Therefore, all the good intentions to
intensively explain the consequences
of the plan are likely in vain.
Debtors in those districts should
not be required to make a Rule
3012(b) or Rule 4003(d) request as
a nonstandard plan provision. It is
nonsensical that an unambiguous
procedural right that is permitted
under the Bankruptcy Rules should
be treated as “nonstanda