See 11 U.S.C. Case 1:17-cv-00638-ODE-LTW Document 9 Filed 04/21/17 Page 12 of 23 - 13 - § 1325(a)(5) (describing how secured claims may be provided for in the plan); In re Curtis, 322 B.R. 470, 481 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2005) (explaining that under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) “modification may include converting a secured claim to an unsecured claim, even on a debtor’s principal residence, where the claim is wholly unsecured” and that the claim may be discharged); see also Horsch, 94 F. Supp. 3d at 665 (describing part of putative class as Chapter 13 debtors who continued to pay their mortgages in order to stave off foreclosure). 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).

The Discharge Order tracks the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a), which excludes from a discharge order any debt “provided for under section 1322(b)(5).” 11 U.S.C. 1328(a)(1). Section 1322(b)(5) permits a debtor in a Chapter 13 case to “provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any unsecured claim or secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due[.]”

. Case 1:17-cv-01284-SCJ-JFK Document 8-1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 13 of 21 14 In this case, Plaintiff alleges the Loan was a “long-term secured mortgage debt” that was not subject to discharge in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1328, and 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). [Doc.

In reality, thisHonorable Court has subject matter jurisdiction overthe totality of the claims being raised. The causes of action in thismatter arise under Federal law, Regulation X, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 2605 andalso under, 11 U.S.C. § 524, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 and 11 U.S.C. § 105. Edgar's bankruptcy matterwasclosed on December 19,2016.

Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (a plaintiff’s required showing under § 1681s-2(b) is factual inaccuracy, rather than the existence of disputed legal questions, furnishers are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve matters that turn on questions that can only be resolved by a court of law); DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2008). In this case, Plaintiff alleges the Loan was a “long-term secured mortgage debt” that was not subject to discharge in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1328, and 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). [Doc.

Instead, there is no court order or other document that lays out the scope of Plaintiffs’ discharge and its specific impacts on the Wells Fargo debt or otherwise states that the Wells Fargo debt is not discharged. Instead, the discharge order does not specify which debts are actually discharged, stating “A discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) is granted to: John Patrick Archuleta [and] Gina Marie Archuleta,” and then listing broad categories of debts that may not be discharged. See In re Archuleta, 1:12-bk-73077, Doc 49, (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2016).

Yet, it does not appear that Plaintiff’s plan falls into any exceptions to discharge, not even the exception for plans that provide for the curing of defaults and maintenance of payments because Plaintiff did not have a pre-petition arrearage to cure, even if she was maintaining payments. See 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(1); In re Jones-Bentley, 1:11-bk-79169, Doc. 2 at 4 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2011).

Yet, it does not appear that Plaintiff’s plan falls into any exceptions to discharge, not even the exception for plans that provide for the curing of defaults and maintenance of payments because Plaintiff did not have a pre-petition arrearage to cure, even if she was maintaining payments. See 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(1); In re Cantrell, 4:11-bk-41236, Doc. 2 at 4 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 12, 2011).

Under the Bankruptcy Code, confirmation of Plaintiff’s Plan is not equivalent to a discharge of Plaintiff’s debts, and Plaintiff is not entitled to receive a discharge of debts covered under Case 1:16-cv-03612-AT-JFK Document 13-1 Filed 12/07/16 Page 9 of 15 10 Plaintiff’s Plan until Plaintiff has successfully completed all payments required under her Plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1328; In re Carter, 9 B.R. 140 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981). If Plaintiff does not stay current on the Plan, Plaintiff will not be entitled to a discharge of her debt, and the original contractual terms would remain in effect.

Case 12-11364-whd Doc 50 Filed 07/21/15 Entered 07/21/15 08:55:56 Desc Order Discharging 13 Page 1 of 2 Case :15-cv-00197-TCB-RGV Document 32-3 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 3 2. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1328(d), the debtor(s) is not discharged from any debt based on an allowed claim filed under 11 U.S.C. Section 1305(a)(2) if prior approval by the trustee of the incurring such debt by the debtor(s) was practicable and was not obtained. 3.