Dated: February 4, 2020 Utica, New York /s/DIANE DAVIS_________________________________ Diane Davis United States Bankruptcy Judge 8 The Court notes that its conclusion regarding the need for congressional action finds support in the recently published 2017–2019 Final Report of the ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy. See ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy, 2017–2019 Final Report and Recommendations, at pp. 1–15, available at https://consumercommission.abi.org/commission-report (“Summary: While the Commission supports the separate classification of student loan debts, it recommends in the first instance statutory amendments to the Bankruptcy Code [including to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(4) to except priority student loan debt from the repayment-in-full requirement, and to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(10) to allow for the payment of interest].” Case 19-60409-6-dd Doc 26 Filed 02/04/20 Entered 02/04/20 14:53:03 Desc Main Document Page 25 of 25

Ray v. Equifax Information Solutions, Inc., 327 Fed. Appx 819, 826 (11th Cir. 2009). It is not clear that any of the information regarding the Loan furnished by BANA was false, misleading or inaccurate – Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case that was confirmed but not discharged, and yet Plaintiff alleges that the Loan was a long-term debt not subject to discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). [Doc.

Ray v. Equifax Information Solutions, Inc., 327 Fed. Appx 819, 826 (11th Cir. 2009). It is not clear that any of the information regarding the Loan furnished by BANA was false, misleading or inaccurate – Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case that was confirmed but not discharged, and yet Plaintiff alleges that the Loan was a long-term debt not subject to discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). [Doc.

As an initial matter, the muddle of Plaintiff’s complaint and bankruptcy proceeding makes it difficult to determine what theory Plaintiff is proceeding under. He alleges that he provided for his debt to Guaranty under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). (See Compl.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s implied assertions, the bankruptcy proceedings have not eliminated Plaintiff’s past due obligation to Optimum because the proceedings are still ongoing and the debt will not be discriminating among his creditors, which is forbidden in Chapter 13. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(3) (“[I]f the plan classifies claims, [it] shall provide the same treatment for each claim within a particular class.”).

Nor could she as such an arrangement would amount to discriminating among her creditors, which is forbidden in Chapter 13. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(3) (“if the plan classifies claims, shall provide the same treatment for each claim within a particular class”). Case 2:16-cv-02819-JWL-GEB Document 39 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 11 - 8 - There is, however, a problem with Plaintiff’s allegations that her ongoing Chapter 13 proceeding has somehow obliterated her past due obligation to KCKC, namely that her Chapter 13 case is just that, ongoing.

In some instances, a debtor can cure pre-petition deficiencies without excepting the debt from their bankruptcy discharge. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(b)(3), 1328 (provision providing for cure of defaults, but not excepted from discharge under § 1328). The Wells Fargo debt is specifically provided for in the Amended Chapter 13 Plan, explaining how the debtors would pay Wells Fargo directly and would use their plan to cure prior arrearages.

¶ 19), have held that long term debts provided for in a Chapter 13 plan which have no pre-petition arrearages are not excepted from the bankruptcy discharge. See In re Rogers, 494 B.R. 664, 669 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013) (explaining that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge is broad in nature, and a debt is not excepted under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) unless the plan provides for curing pre- petition arrearages). Indeed, Plaintiff’s own counsel has alleged in other cases that debts treated under § 1322(b)(5) have been discharged.

¶ 20), have held that long term debts provided for in a Chapter 13 plan, which have no pre-petition arrearages, are not excepted from the bankruptcy discharge. See In re Rogers, 494 B.R. 664, 669 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013) (explaining that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge is broad in nature, and a debt is not excepted under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) unless the plan provides for curing pre- petition arrearages). Indeed, Plaintiff’s own counsel has alleged in other cases that debts treated under § 1322(b)(5) have been discharged.

Further, some bankruptcy courts construing 11 U.S.C. § 1328’s exception for long term debts treated under § 1322(b)(5) have held that long term debts provided for in the plan, which have no pre-petition arrearages, like Plaintiff’s debt to Wells Fargo, are not excepted from the bankruptcy discharge. See In re Rogers, 494 B.R. 664, 669 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013) (explaining that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge is broad in nature, and a debt is not excepted under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) unless the plan provides for curing pre-petition arrearages). Indeed, Plaintiff’s own counsel has alleged in other cases that debts treated under § 1322(b)(5) have been discharged.