[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Inre Valdelan, Mark A. Wolfe, Council for Appellants, Melanio L. Valdelan, and Ellen C. Valdelan, Neil J. Cooper, Council for Appellees, PHP Mortgage Corporation, and Wells Fargo Bank, NA, as indentured trustee.

[00:00:22] Speaker 06:
All right, Mr. Wolfe, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
Yes, please.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
I'd like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:30] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:00:30] Speaker 06:
Thank you.

[00:00:31] Speaker 06:
You may begin.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
Mark Wolfe appearing on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Valdelan.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
And here the Valdelans are requesting that the court go beyond simply reversing the bankruptcy course ruling.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
We are requesting that the court find and determine that Wells Fargo and PHH are in violation of 11 U.S.C.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
524 I.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
Now I have some concerns that the mild punitive damages that may be awarded by the bankruptcy court may not be sufficient to coerce Wells Fargo and PHH into compliance, and it may therefore be appropriate to send the matter back to the district court with recommendations.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
Now, kind of getting ahead of myself, we're here before

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
this court because the bankruptcy court has again dismissed Valdelan's complaint with prejudice without examining the allegations that Wells Fargo and PHH are in violation of 11 USC 524i.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
In this instance, Judge Heime found that 524i was inapplicable as a matter of law after making findings that there was an incurable default in Valdelan's plan.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
Additionally, and alternatively,

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
The court found that Valdelans had not pled a plausible claim for relief under 524i because Wells Fargo and PHH filed a response to notice of final cure, acknowledging that all arrears were cured and post-petition payments were made.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
So first, as to plausibility.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
Contrary to the bankruptcy court's ruling, it is not logical to conclude that payments were properly credited simply because Wells Fargo filed a response to notice of final cure.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
That's true.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
You can't find that when there were monthly statements that were sent showing delinquency, collection activity, which was contrary to the notice of final cure, as well as Wells Fargo and PHH's own admissions, that they were collecting additional amounts they were claiming were underpaid by the Chapter 13 trustee.

[00:02:47] Speaker 06:
So, Mr. Go ahead, go ahead, Kim.

[00:02:51] Speaker 06:
What I was gonna say is, well, even let's assuming that's a plausible conclusion,

[00:02:56] Speaker 06:
It's not the only conclusion that you could reach, the one that the bankruptcy court reached, right?

[00:03:02] Speaker 06:
You are pleading, alleged, that these facts that you just stated, right?

[00:03:09] Speaker 06:
And so is it you're also an alternate plausible conclusion, the one that you asserted?

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
Yes, I do believe so.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
And I think the district court also recognized that in our prior appeal.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
The district court found that they had great concerns regarding the actions that were taken by Wells Fargo and PHH.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
But counsel, the point I think Judge Brand's making, and the one that I'm concerned about also, is you're suggesting that you have an absolute proof case that we should enter judgment.

[00:03:41] Speaker 05:
And what I think we're struggling with is if we go with you, we think you've stated a claim under 12B6, the motion should have been denied, but they've asserted some confusion about when payments be, in other words, let's say the plan ended in March of 2019.

[00:04:03] Speaker 05:
There were payments that were made after March

[00:04:09] Speaker 05:
but before the statements that were received in September that stated there were delinquent amounts and we don't know exactly what the proof is with regard to those you take the position that they're absolutely cured and everything was current as of some date after the plan was completed but those facts might not be true or they might be true

[00:04:30] Speaker 05:
But there's some contest, isn't there?

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
So even if you win, wouldn't we want to simply remand for a trial and say the complaint shouldn't have been dismissed?

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, I think not.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
There was the response to notice of final cure, and that was many months after the debtors completed their 60-month plan.

[00:04:55] Speaker 05:
But could he actually give a notice that would extend beyond the plan

[00:05:00] Speaker 05:
period when he's the trustee and only responsible for payments up through the plan of which can you have it both ways can you say well he was wrong to ask us to make payments beyond the plan period but then since we made the payments and we seem to have cured it he could give up a notice that is extensive beyond his powerful his powers as trustee

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
Well, the notice simply acknowledged what the trustee paid.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
There was a dispute as to what the trustee was required to pay.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
And there was a motion to dismiss that was filed, and that motion was resolved by the parties.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
It was a disputed motion.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
And debtors, Valdelans, contended that there was

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
The trustee was asking for payments that were not due under the plan.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
Nonetheless, it was agreed by the parties that it would be more efficient to simply allow the trustee to make those payments.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
That way, we had a good record of what was paid.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
The notice of final cures by the trustee indicated that all the pre-petition arrears were cured.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
and that post-petition maintenance payments were made.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
It didn't necessarily assert that all of the maintenance payments were payments under the 60-month plan, but it was payments were made.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
And it was agreed to, and it gave the parties the opportunity to litigate the issues of whether or not the arrears were cured and maintenance payments were made.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
That was the whole point, whether it was through May or March or September, as the trustee had put it.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
That was the party's opportunity to bring these issues to light, to litigate this and find out what actually happened with the Chapter 13.

[00:07:03] Speaker 05:
So I guess what I'm concerned about is if they didn't oppose it, and in fact said that the trustee's notice was accurate, but were only concerned about the 60-month period,

[00:07:14] Speaker 05:
didn't read the notice to actually require them to agree that beyond the 60-month period, up to the date of the notice in September or later, that the planned payments were current.

[00:07:25] Speaker 05:
They may not have objected, may have agreed, because they didn't disagree with the earlier period, but may have some disagreement with the later period.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
It's interesting, but the Trustee's notice of final cure indicated that he had paid all pre-petition arrears and paid all of the post-petition payments through September.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
The response acknowledged that, acknowledged that the pre-petition arrears were cured

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
and indicated that the payments were made through October.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
They recognize that valid alarms made their October monthly payment directly.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
And not just agreeing with the trustees' notice of final cure, in their response, they indicated, yes, the account was fully current even through October.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
They apparently did recognize that this was including, in their response to notice of final cure, included post-trustee payments, so necessarily included post-planned payments.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
Did you want to move to the other, one of the other two issues before we use all your time?

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
Yes, as to the applicability of 524i, you know, the bankruptcy court's ruling strips the order of discharge and Valdelan's Chapter 13 of all meaning.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
I think it's just improper to find that there, you know, years after the bankruptcy is complete, to find that there is some incurable material default in the plan and then deny Valdelan's the benefit of their discharge order.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
I have a litany of reasons why the finding of an incurable material default is inappropriate.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
Everything from the race judicata effect of the order confirming plan, excuse me, the race judicata effect of the order of discharge, the fact that the prior ruling allowed the motion by the trustee to be dismissed when it was withdrawn.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
A real problem with the fact that that finding was based solely on allegations in the Chapter 13 Trustee's motion which was withdrawn when it was disputed.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
On top of that, it was just wrong on the facts.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
Ironically, Your Honor, it's being bound by the plan and the order of discharge is the same issue that Valdelans are bringing in the underlying proceedings.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
From Wells Fargo and PHHG's own statements, we see that they're boldly admitting that they were collecting amounts that they allege were being underpaid by the Chapter 13 trustee.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
They disagree with the pre-petition arrears amount, they disagree with the amount of the monthly payments being made by the trustee, and they now disagree with the Notice of Final Cure and their own response to the Notice of Final Cure.

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
Well, they initially accepted payments directly from Valdelans.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
After the entry of the order of discharge, they demanded payments for delinquencies that were made by the trustee.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
They rejected Valdelans' payments.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
They added additional fees.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
They commenced foreclosure proceedings.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
And they did all this because they claimed that they have a lien.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
And their lien allows them to collect more than they're allowed under the Chapter 13.

[00:11:00] Speaker 06:
You filed a proof of claim for the creditor, right?

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, it's hard to hear you.

[00:11:07] Speaker 06:
Sorry, you filed a proof of claim on behalf of Wells Fargo because they didn't file a claim, is that this case?

[00:11:13] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
Yeah, the debtor's attorney filed a proof of claim, correct.

[00:11:17] Speaker 06:
All right, and Wells Fargo did not modify the claim or amend it in any way, right?

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
Well, they supplemented the claim seven times, but they did not object to the claim, and they did not amend the claim as to the amount of arrears, and they did not amend the claim as to the amount of the monthly payments before their first supplement.

[00:11:41] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:11:41] Speaker 05:
And then after their last supplement, the plan was modified to increase the payment amount from that date until the termination of the plan.

[00:11:51] Speaker 05:
and those payments were reflected in the trustees motion and they were all consistently made at thirty six hundred eighty five dollars per month even if it was more than one payment in the month that was received a totaled that amount for every month up and through the end of the plan term in march of twenty nine yes essentially correct okay we're taking a look some of your time i don't know if you want server how you want to deal with it uh... you know i i i would reserve the rest of my time for the

[00:12:23] Speaker 06:
All right, thank you.

[00:12:24] Speaker 06:
Mr. Cooper?

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
My name is Neil Cooper.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
I represent PHH Mortgage Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank as trustee.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
The first point I'd like to raise is debtors contention that there was no breach of the plan and that the bankruptcy court perhaps went outside the pleadings.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
That's not within the second amendment complaint.

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
In the second main complaint, debtors allegedly filed a plan in March 2014, and we're still trying to perform through September 2019.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
Those are paragraphs 19, 41, 42, and 146 through 148.

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
So even if the bankruptcy court went outside the pleadings to understand what was going on, the complaint itself establishes that the plan payments were not complete until September, and therefore establishes the plan was an incurable breach as the bankruptcy court held.

[00:13:16] Speaker 05:
but but counsel he went to the motion filed by the trustee if the trustee's motion was wrong mistaken purposely intentionally incorrect it doesn't matter then that's the sole basis for his decision then we reverse don't we because we have a we have a de novo review you too but um you know

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
The court independently reviews the record, which you do.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
You can see that the second minute complaint says the same thing that the court meant to.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
So even though he looked at one thing and you're looking at perhaps the right thing, arguably, it's the same conclusion that you're both going to reach.

[00:14:02] Speaker 05:
No, it isn't, is it?

[00:14:04] Speaker 05:
If we conclude the trustee's report was incorrect, that in fact he mistakenly asserted there was a default when there wasn't,

[00:14:11] Speaker 05:
Irrespective the plan ended on a specific day, we know what day that is.

[00:14:16] Speaker 05:
Why do we know that?

[00:14:17] Speaker 05:
Because the plan term can only be 60 months.

[00:14:19] Speaker 05:
It doesn't matter what they put in the complaint.

[00:14:22] Speaker 05:
If the plan was current, the trustee was incorrect.

[00:14:26] Speaker 05:
If that's true, then the decision he made is erroneous, isn't it?

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
I don't believe we get there because the operative pleading itself states that they were still performing through September.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
So I don't think we can reach the conclusion that the plan actually ended earlier.

[00:14:44] Speaker 05:
It has to end.

[00:14:46] Speaker 05:
For him to find there's a material default, it has to end at some point, doesn't it?

[00:14:51] Speaker 05:
It can only be under the code of 60 month plan at most.

[00:14:54] Speaker 05:
That's what the reason he determined

[00:14:56] Speaker 05:
that they were in material default was they didn't complete the plan payments under his theory within the 60-month period.

[00:15:03] Speaker 05:
It was incurable at that point.

[00:15:05] Speaker 05:
If it could extend beyond, then the 10th Circuit case he relies upon and all the other theories that he goes with go out the window because there's no limitation on when they can cure.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
I think that the second committee complaint establishes or admits that they hadn't finished by the 60-month deadline.

[00:15:25] Speaker 05:
Well, that how can that be true when by the 60 month deadline that's demonstrated by the exhibit that they pointed out that's in the brief that's attached to the trustees motion where his assistant lays out the payments payments that were made under the plan when

[00:15:40] Speaker 05:
before the modification was made and then subsequent to the modification all the way through the end of March.

[00:15:46] Speaker 05:
So under the 60-month plan, there's no default.

[00:15:49] Speaker 05:
You certified in September that they had made all of the pre-petition arrearage payments, all of the post-petition plan payments.

[00:15:57] Speaker 05:
So you don't have the ability today to tell me the judge was right when your position was, that's not true.

[00:16:06] Speaker 05:
You certified that.

[00:16:08] Speaker 05:
You weren't required to, but did.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
If we're accepting that as true, then the bankruptcy court's conclusion that that's kind of the only plausible explanation that there was no misapplication then comes into play.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
I mean, if we're saying notice of final cure wasn't... It isn't misapplication.

[00:16:28] Speaker 05:
It's crediting.

[00:16:30] Speaker 05:
And those are different terms, aren't they?

[00:16:35] Speaker 05:
You can apply the payments any way you want, but the plan says you will credit them in a specific manner.

[00:16:41] Speaker 05:
If you don't do that, who cares if you applied the payments to pre or post-petition amounts?

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference.

[00:16:50] Speaker 05:
Well, crediting says they're going to be paying you $19,000 in arrearage payments.

[00:16:56] Speaker 05:
Everything else that they pay you is going to be applied to the regular mortgage payments.

[00:17:02] Speaker 05:
If you say no,

[00:17:04] Speaker 05:
We applied 20,000 or 21,000 or whatever number, not 19, to the pre-petitioner rearages.

[00:17:12] Speaker 05:
You've made an application of the payments, but you haven't credited them in accordance with the terms of the confirmed plan, because that specified exactly how much was going to be credited to the pre-petition amounts.

[00:17:28] Speaker 05:
So your application of payments wasn't incorrect.

[00:17:32] Speaker 05:
You can apply them any way you want.

[00:17:34] Speaker 05:
You can't credit them differently under the code than the plan provides.

[00:17:39] Speaker 05:
There's a distinction there.

[00:17:40] Speaker 05:
I hope you get the difference.

[00:17:43] Speaker 03:
I do understand that, and I apologize if I was using them incorrectly.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
We agree that you have to credit them according to the plan.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
And if we're going off the notice of final care as being accurate, then I don't see where there was a failure to credit sufficient for 524i.

[00:18:06] Speaker 05:
Because you then issued a statement that said you were in arrears after the completion of the plan payments, where you said you have done everything that's required for pre-petition payments, arrear payments, and you are current.

[00:18:20] Speaker 05:
on all post-petition payments, there could be nothing more than a regular monthly mortgage payment that would be due.

[00:18:26] Speaker 05:
There could be no other amounts due, but that's not what your statement was, that you sent them.

[00:18:33] Speaker 05:
You sent them a statement that said they're in default.

[00:18:36] Speaker 05:
$20,000 you still owe, but that couldn't be true.

[00:18:42] Speaker 05:
If it was properly credited, could it?

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
At that point, then I would think, okay,

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
Are we admitting that the monthly statement was accurate?

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
I mean, we'll agree that both things can't be true.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
The monthly statement cannot be accurate if the notice of final cure is accurate.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
I'm still not seeing where he's pled or there is evidence of a failure to credit.

[00:19:12] Speaker 05:
If you make a demand for a payment that's in excess of the regular monthly payment at the conclusion of the statement that everything is the final cure payment, everything is current, if you make a demand for anything more than that, hasn't he stated a claim under 524i?

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
No, because that's not evidence of a failure of credit.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, that could be the monthly statement was wrong.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
Period.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
That doesn't mean that any payment made during the bankruptcy was not credited as it was intended to be.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
That would show that there was an erroneous monthly statement.

[00:19:48] Speaker 05:
That would be true if it happened once.

[00:19:51] Speaker 05:
If it happens every month, and then you refuse to accept future payments, doesn't that evidence an intent not to credit appropriately?

[00:20:01] Speaker 03:
I don't think that shows a failure to credit, 4524i.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
The application and credit issues.

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
What was the basis for the collection actions when you instituted foreclosure proceedings?

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
Well, you started foreclosure, correct?

[00:20:23] Speaker 02:
You started those proceedings.

[00:20:24] Speaker 02:
What was the basis of that?

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
That there were unpaid amounts owed on the loan.

[00:20:35] Speaker 05:
But they couldn't be

[00:20:38] Speaker 05:
or anything that happened pre-completion of the plan, right?

[00:20:43] Speaker 05:
Because you said they were current at that point, and they couldn't be for any amounts in excess of the regular monthly payment that would have been due because you've said that they were current as of September.

[00:20:56] Speaker 05:
So what else could it be besides an erroneous crediting of payments?

[00:21:06] Speaker 03:
The, I mean, the amounts as it's been set forth, they filed the proof of claim.

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
It understated the amount due.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
So, you know, no, there was no obligation to, uh, the amounts paid for the pre-petition went towards and were credited for pre-petition.

[00:21:30] Speaker 03:
That doesn't mean that the other amounts go away.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, that's under in-rate broaders.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
And so, you know, saying, you know, PHH can credit according to the plan and for there still to be an amount due.

[00:21:48] Speaker 05:
Not when they make a notice of final cure that says everything is current and you agree.

[00:21:54] Speaker 05:
Then that's inconsistent, isn't it?

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
It is inconsistent, but the notice of final cure is for rule 3002.1, which was inapplicable in this case.

[00:22:07] Speaker 05:
You filed seven of those statements during the courts of the case, and they relied upon them to their detriment to increase plan payments every time to get compliance with the court and with you.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
How is that fair for you now to say, well, that rule doesn't really apply?

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
We're here today on whether there was a 524i violation.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
They can go off to state court saying, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, we want an accounting.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
There's no basis for the bankruptcy court to have jurisdiction over this, and there is no 524i claim flat.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
And so we agree with the bankruptcy court that, you know,

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
dismissed the state court claims without prejudice.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
They have remedies outside of the bankruptcy court.

[00:23:01] Speaker 03:
And frankly, that's where we think this should go.

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
So I'll take it from the question.

[00:23:08] Speaker 05:
He didn't rule that way, though.

[00:23:10] Speaker 05:
He didn't rule that he didn't have jurisdiction over the bankruptcy over the 524 action.

[00:23:14] Speaker 05:
He dismissed it without prejudice and leave to amend.

[00:23:18] Speaker 05:
He didn't say he didn't have jurisdiction, correct?

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
He dismissed it because there was no 524i violation.

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
But as the state court claims, he found he lacked jurisdiction.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
So I'm happy to take any further questions.

[00:23:34] Speaker 03:
Otherwise, I'll cede the rest of my time.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
I don't have any further questions.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
Julie, we couldn't hear you again.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
I can't hear you.

[00:23:50] Speaker 05:
Yeah, Julie, for whatever reason.

[00:23:52] Speaker 06:
I've been having trouble.

[00:23:53] Speaker 06:
Yeah.

[00:23:54] Speaker 05:
Now it's low, but we can hear a little bit.

[00:23:57] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:23:58] Speaker 05:
There it's better.

[00:24:00] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:24:02] Speaker 06:
Mr. Wolf, why don't you finish up the rest of your argument?

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
oh thank you your honor it's interesting mr mr cooper's crack they they had no obligation to amend their their claim uh... they they they could have amended their claim if they wanted to kirk received the correct amount or what they believed is the correct amount otherwise the plan is is clear the only

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
manner for payment of pre-petition arrears is through the trustee.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
So while they didn't have to, to the extent that they chose not to amend their claim, they've waived any right to receive any pre-petition arrears beyond the amount of the claim.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
Second, very briefly I want to talk about the emotional distress

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
It was kind of interesting that the bankruptcy judge continued the hearing for the purposes of the parties briefing the emotional distress issue, only to make that moot by dismissing the case with prejudice.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
I didn't spend a whole lot of time on that issue because the underlying issue is frankly much more important.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
But in the end, I think the old soil, as it's called, has led to a number of cases

[00:25:29] Speaker 01:
that have found that it is appropriate to award emotional distress damages in cases of violations of the automatic stay, as well as violations of the discharge injunction, and I think that the court could follow those reasoning.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
Finally, there really is no deadline

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
that needs to pass before a creditor can choose to collect differently from what's allowed under the Chapter 13 plan.

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
Here it appears that the creditor has been saying, you know, we've complied with the plan.

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
didn't attempt to collect while the Chapter 13 was going on, but somehow as soon as the Chapter 13 order of discharge was entered, they're then permitted to collect more based upon their lien.

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
That's just a fallacious argument, Your Honor.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
The rights of a creditor based on their lien are simply to enforce the terms of the note

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
and the note in this case has been modified by the Chapter 13 plan related to the cure of arrears and specifically also related to the amount of the monthly payments that are to be made by the trustee for ongoing monthly payments.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
It doesn't change those numbers, it simply affords the creditor

[00:27:04] Speaker 01:
an opportunity to advise the debtor, the trustee, and the court of what those numbers are.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
If they don't amend their claim or file a claim or file something, a supplement to indicate what the correct post-petition payment amount is, they're essentially waiving it and accepting the payments that are being made by the Chapter 13 plan.

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
I have nothing further unless the court has questions.

[00:27:33] Speaker 06:
Any questions?

[00:27:34] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:27:35] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:27:35] Speaker 06:
Thank you.

[00:27:35] Speaker 06:
This will be submitted.

[00:27:38] Speaker 06:
Madam Clerk, please call the next case.