Case No. 06-10011.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
September 21, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER ON OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION
ROBERT GRANT, Bankruptcy Judge
This matter is before the court with regard to confirmation of debtors’ amended plan and objections thereto filed by Wells Fargo Financial Acceptance and Drive Financial Services. The issues raised by those objections were to have been submitted upon the stipulations of fact and briefs of counsel. Although the anticipated stipulations were filed, only Wells Fargo Financial Acceptance, Drive Financial Services, and the trustee have filed briefs and the trustee’s brief indicates that she takes no formal position on the issues raised by the creditors’ objections, preferring to leave the matter “to the Court in its sound discretion. . . .” Trustee’s Brief, pg. 16.
Both Wells Fargo and Drive Financial objected to their treatment under debtor’s proposed amended plan, because, as the parties stipulate, the vehicles securing their claims were purchased within 910 days prior to filing, and they argue that they are each entitled to different treatment than they are currently receiving under the proposed plan. Both creditors argue that they are entitled to be paid the full balance of their respective loans with interest in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 124 S. Ct. 1951 (2004). See, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (hanging paragraph). The debtor’s amended plan proposes to pay Drive Financial the full balance of the loan, but without interest and proposes to pay Wells Fargo less than the full balance
Page 2
of the loan, but with interest at a rate of 7%.
The debtor has the burden of proving that its proposed plan is confirmable. Matter of Wolff, 22 B.R. 510, 512 (9th Cir. BAP 1982); In re Moore, 319 B.R. 504, 515 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2005);In re Hogue, 78 B.R. 867, 872 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1987). In the face of what appear to be valid complaints, see e.g., In reBrown, 339 B.R. 818, 821 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2006); In re Murray,346 B.R. 237 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2006); In re Sparks, 346 B.R. 767
(Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006); In re Wampler, 45 B.R. 730
(Bankr. D. Kan. 2006); In re Bufford, 343 B.R. 827 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006), to which the debtor has offered no response, the court is left with little alternative other than to sustain the objections filed by Drive Financial Services and Wells Fargo Financial Acceptance. Confirmation of the debtors’ amended plan is therefore DENIED. Any further plan shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of this date, for hearing and objection on notice to all creditors. The failure to do so will result in dismissal without further notice.
SO ORDERED.