In Re: Wayne K. Crawford, Debtor-Appellant
198 A.L.R. Fed. 839, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6276, 324 F.3d 539 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan's classification of unsecured claims constitutes "unfair discrimination" under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1) if it unreasonably shifts the burden of a nondischargeable debt to other creditors without being necessary for the plan's success. Bankruptcy courts have the discretion to determine what is reasonable, and their decisions are upheld unless they constitute an abuse of that discretion.
Facts:
- Wayne Crawford had nonpriority unsecured debts totaling approximately $37,500.
- This debt included about $19,000 owed to the IRS and $500 to trade creditors.
- It also included $18,000 owed to a county, resulting from the county paying welfare to the mother of Crawford's child and taking an assignment of her right to child support payments.
- The debt owed to the county for child support is nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code.
- Crawford proposed a Chapter 13 plan that created two classes of unsecured creditors.
- Under his amended plan, the county would receive payment for two-thirds of its debt, while the IRS and trade creditors would receive nothing.
- If all unsecured creditors were treated equally, each would receive approximately 32 cents on the dollar.
Procedural Posture:
- Wayne Crawford filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and submitted a repayment plan.
- The bankruptcy court refused to confirm Crawford's plan.
- Crawford, as appellant, appealed the bankruptcy court's decision to the U.S. District Court.
- The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.
- Crawford, as appellant, appealed the district court's affirmance to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Chapter 13 plan "discriminate unfairly" against a class of unsecured creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1) by proposing to pay two-thirds of a nondischargeable child support debt while paying nothing to other unsecured creditors, who would otherwise receive a 32% pro-rata distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
Yes, the plan discriminates unfairly. A Chapter 13 plan may not classify claims in a way that unreasonably harms one class of creditors for the debtor's sole benefit. The court rejected rigid multi-factor tests for determining 'unfair discrimination' in favor of a general reasonableness standard, reviewed for abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court. A classification is reasonable if it is necessary for the plan's success and ultimately benefits the creditor body as a whole, such as by allowing the debtor to keep essential work tools. However, a classification is unreasonable if its primary effect is simply to shift the burden of a nondischargeable debt—like Crawford's child support obligation—onto other unsecured creditors. Crawford's plan offered no justification beyond his personal desire to pay down the nondischargeable debt, effectively forcing the IRS and trade creditors to subsidize his personal obligation while receiving nothing themselves.
Analysis:
This decision rejects the prevalent but often confusing multi-factor tests for analyzing unfair discrimination in Chapter 13 plans. It instead champions a more flexible, deferential 'reasonableness' standard that empowers bankruptcy judges to make context-specific determinations. The ruling clarifies that the dual purposes of Chapter 13—debtor rehabilitation and creditor protection—must be balanced. It establishes that a debtor cannot use the classification tool simply to ease the burden of a nondischargeable debt at the direct expense of other unsecured creditors without a compelling justification linked to the overall success of the plan.
Unlock the full brief for In Re: Wayne K. Crawford, Debtor-Appellant