Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
of the IRS's secured claim. The parties later agreed that the amount
of the IRS's remaining secured claim was $139,750.89. The district
court affirmed; Deutchman appeals.
II.
We review the district court's decision by applying the same standard of review that it applied to the bankruptcy court's decision. See
Bowers v. Atlanta Motor Speedway, Inc. (In re Southeast Hotel Properties Ltd. Partnership), 99 F.3d 151, 154 (4th Cir. 1996). That is, we
review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.
See id.; Canal Corp. v. Finnman (In re Johnson), 960 F.2d 396, 399
(4th Cir. 1992).
A.
We begin with an overview of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy process
as it relates to the events underlying this matter. Section 501 of the
Bankruptcy Code governs the filing of proofs of claims or interests
by creditors. See 11 U.S.C.A. 501 (West 1993). If proof of a claim
or interest is filed by a creditor and is not objected to, the claim or
interest is "deemed allowed." See 11 U.S.C.A. 502(a) (West 1993)
("A claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this
title, is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest. . . objects.").
Because Deutchman did not object to the IRS's proof of claim, the
IRS held an allowed secured claim in the amount of $172,579.15.
The Chapter 13 debtor must file a plan, see 11 U.S.C.A. 1321
(West 1993), the contents of which are specified under 11 U.S.C.A.
1322 (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). All interested parties must be notified of the requisite court hearing to confirm the plan, at which time
any "party in interest may object to confirmation of the plan." See 11
U.S.C.A. 1324 (West 1993). In the instant case, the IRS neither
appeared at the confirmation hearing nor objected to the confirmation
of Deutchman's plan.
The impact of a confirmed plan on the parties involved in the
Chapter 13 reorganization is governed by 11 U.S.C.A. 1327 (West
1993), which provides:
4
IRS's liens, he failed to effectively do so because he sought no preconfirmation adversary hearing. Second, Deutchman filed no objection to the proof of claim filed by the IRS, sought no valuation hearing pursuant to 11 U.S.C.A. 506 (West 1993), nor otherwise
attempted to modify the lien in any affirmative way. Instead, Deutchman attempted to "provide for" the liens and obtain a favorable result
by merely camouflaging his treatment of the IRS's liens in his plan.2
Obviously, this was not an appropriate affirmative step; and for the
lack of an appropriate affirmative step his effort to avoid the lien fails.
C.
In so holding, we necessarily reject Deutchman's claim that, upon
payment of the partial amount due the IRS under his plan, his property will nevertheless vest in him free and clear of the IRS's liens
under 1327(c) because his plan "provided for" the IRS's claims.
Section 1327(c) does not define "provided for." However, in Rake v.
Wade, 508 U.S. 464 (1993), the Supreme Court defined "provided
for," as used in 11 U.S.C.A. 1325(a)(5)(West 1993), as "to make a
provision for or stipulate to something in a plan," Rake, 508 U.S. at
473 (internal quotation marks omitted), and, as used in 11 U.S.C.A.
1328(a)(West 1993), as "makes provision for, deals with, or even
refers to a claim," Rake, 508 U.S. at 474 (internal quotation marks
omitted). This court, in Cen-Pen, held that,"[a]s a general matter, a
plan `provides for' a claim or interest [under 1327(c)] when it
acknowledges the claim or interest and makes explicit provision for
its treatment." 58 F.3d at 94 (emphasis added). We also held
that"`[e]ven where confirmed without objection, a plan will not eliminate a lien simply by failing or refusing to acknowledge it or by calling the creditor unsecured.'" Id. (quoting Beard, 112 B.R. at 954).
_________________________________________________________________
2 Deutchman has not satisfactorily explained the basis for reducing the
IRS's secured claim, or for eliminating the presumably valid liens upon
his property. There is no indication that he believed that the liens were
invalid or that the claim was not legitimate. Nor is there any reason to
believe that the property securing the claim was of insufficient value to
secure any portion of the claim. Rather, it appears that Deutchman simply attempted to eliminate valid liens securing an unchallenged claim by
calling the claim something that everyone agrees it was not -- a 507
unsecured priority claim.
6
III.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court holding that completion of the payments called for under the terms of the confirmed
plan could not extinguish the liens is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
8