|DO NOT PUBLISH This case disposition has no value as precedent and is not intended for publication. Any publication, either in print or electronically, is contrary to the intent and wishes of the court.|
In re PETER and REGINA NEWCOME, No. 01-12873 Debtor(s). ______________________________________/
The only remaining objection to the debtors' plan is from secured creditor Michael Freeman, who holds a note secured by a junior deed of trust to the debtor's residence which became all due before the bankruptcy. The plan calls for full payment of this obligation over the five year life of the plan, together with interest.
Freeman is correct in arguing that such a plan was not confirmable under In re Seidel, 752 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1985). However, that case was overruled by the 1994 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Ibarra, 235 B.R. 204, 208 (1999 Bankr.D.Puerto Rico); In re Nepil, 206 B.R. 72, 75 (1997 Bankr. D.N.J.); In re Lobue, 189 B.R. 281, 282 (1995 Bankr.S.D. Fla.); In re Jones, 188 B.R. 281, 282 (1995 Bankr.D.Or); In re Miller, 191 B.R. 487, 488 ( 1995 Bankr.S.D.Fla.); In re Chang, 185 B.R. 50, 53 (1995 Bankr.N.D.Ill.). Since 1994, no court has followed Seidel.
Since the plan meets all of the other requirements for confirmation, and since Seidel has been superceded by statute, and since the terms for treatment of the Freeman obligation are very fair and reasonable, the objection will be overruled and the plan confirmed. Counsel for the debtors shall submit an appropriate form of order.
Dated: March 25, 2002 ___________________________ Alan Jaroslovsky