Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
In re Perkins
(2025)
Case details
Full caption
In re Eugene Ezra Perkins
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
AI
Hallucinations
Fed.
R.
Bankr.
P.
9011(b)(2)
11
U.S.C.
§
1326(a)(1)
In
re
Perkins,
24-32731-thp13
July
7,
2025
July
28,
2025
Pearson
2025
WL
1871049
(Bankr.
D.
Or.
Jul.
7,
2025)
Debtor
filed
a
pre-confirmati
on
amended
plan
in
a
chapter
13
case,
proposing
to
pay
no
payments
for
the
first
8
months
of
the
case.
The
court
issued
an
order
to
show
cause
re:
dismissal
or
conversion
of
the
case
based
on
debtor’s
failure
to
comply
with
11
U.S.C.
§
1326(a)(1).
The
court
decided
dis
missal
of
the
case
was
appropriate.
Debtor
represented
himself
and
pr
ovided
all
his
own
briefing,
including
citations
to
case
law.
During
the
hearing
on
the
order
to
show
cause
debtor
admitted
to
using
artificial
intelligence
on
his
computer
to
write
his
brief.
After
review
of
debtor’s
cited
authorities,
the
court
determined
that
debtor’s
descriptions
of
those
cases
in
his
brief
were
inaccurate
and
the
cases
were
irrelevant.
Regarding
one
specifi
c
case,
the
court
found
that
ther
e
was
no
case
by
that
name
in
existence
holding
anything
like
what
the
debtor
claimed
it
held.
An
attorney
or
unrepresented
party
presenting
info
rmation
to
the
court
must
comply
with
Fed.
R.
Bankr.
P.
9011.
If
an
attorney
or
party
wants
to
cite
authority
provided
by
artificial
intelligence,
the
court
expects
that
the
a
ttorney
or
party
will
review
that
authority
personally
and
independently
verify
informati
on
stated
about
that
authority
is
correct
before
submitting
a
document
citing
that
author
ity
to
the
court.
Failure
to
do
so
does
not
comply
with
Rule
9011.
Although
the
court
could
have
sa
nctioned
the
debtor,
it
chose
not
to
do
so
because
the
case
would
be
dismissed.
After
the
order
of
dismissal
was
entered,
debtor
filed
a
motion
to
alter
or
amend
the
court’s
decision.
Debtor
again
cited
case
law
that
did
not
exist.
The
c
ourt
entered
an
order
denying
the
motion.
Among
other
arguments,
debtor
contended
that
the
court’s
concerns
about
debtor’s
citation
of
inaccurate,
irrelevant,
and
useless
ma
terials
generated
by
artificial
intelligence
contributed
to
an
“atmosphere
of
undue
prejudice
against
Debtor
as
a
pro
se
litigant.”
The
court
disagreed.
The
court
noted
that,
if
anything,
its
decision
not
to
im
pose
sanctions
on
this
self-represented
debtor
was
more
lenient
than
wh
at
the
court
likely
woul
d
have
decided
if
the
same
transgression
had
been
committed
by
counsel.
Page
1
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
UN
ITED
STATES
BAN
KRUPTCY
COURT
FOR
THE
D
IST
R
ICT
O
F
OREGON
This
matter
c
ame
b
efor
e
the
court
on
Ju
ly
2,
2025,
on
the
court’s
Ord
er
to
S
how
C
ause
Re:
Dismis
sal,
Conversio
n,
or
Other
Relief.
2
Debt
or
Eugene
E
zra
Pe
rkins
r
e
present
ed
himself.
Jonathan
C.
Kuni
appear
ed
o
n
behalf
o
f
chapt
er
1
3
trustee
Wayn
e
G
oda
re.
Christian
Torimino
appear
ed
on
beh
alf
of
the
United
Sta
tes
Truste
e.
Based
on
th
e
arguments
of
debto
r
and
counsel,
an
d
the
reco
rds
and
fil
es
of
this
case,
the
court
hold
s
that
this
case
should
be
dis
missed.
Rele
vant
Fac
ts
1.
Debt
or
file
d
this
volunta
r
y
chapter
13
case
on
Octo
ber
2,
2024.
3
1
This
dis
position
is
specif
ic
to
this
case.
It
may
be
cited
for
wh
atever
p
ersua
sive
valu
e
it
may
have.
2
ECF
No.
120,
filed
June
9,
2025.
3
ECF
No.
1,
filed
O
ctobe
r
2,
2024.
In
re
Eugene
Ez
ra
Perkin
s,
Debto
r.
Case
No.
24
-
32731
-
thp1
3
MEMORANDUM
DEC
ISIO
N
1
Below
is
an
opinion
of
the
court.
_______________________________________
TERESA
H.
PEARSON
U.S.
Bankruptcy
Judge
U.S.
BANKRUPTCY
COURT
DISTRICT
OF
OREGON
F
I
L
E
D
July
07,
2025
Clerk,
U.S.
Bankruptcy
Court
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
2
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
2.
Debt
or
file
d
his
initi
al
chapte
r
13
pla
n
date
d
Octo
ber
23,
2025.
4
This
pla
n
requ
ired
d
ebtor
to
make
m
onthly
payments
of
$
365.44
(alt
hough
the
plan
w
as
som
ewhat
ambiguous,
as
there
a
re
c
o
mponent
s
of
th
e
payme
nt
described
fo
r
the
vehi
c
le,
unsecur
ed
debt,
and
trustee
f
ees
listed
wh
ich
totaled
$365.94
per
mo
nth,
a
fifty-cent
differ
ence
).
3.
Pursuant
to
11
U.S.C
.
secti
on
1326(a)(1
),
the
d
ebt
or’s
first
payme
nt
to
the
chapte
r
13
tr
uste
e
was
du
e
within
in
30
days
of
the
pla
n
fili
ng,
or
th
e
o
rder
f
or
r
elie
f,
whi
cheve
r
is
earlie
r.
Th
at
deadl
ine
w
as
Novembe
r
1,
2025.
4.
The
chapte
r
13
trustee
as
signed
to
this
case
routi
nely
provides
a
booklet
to
all
debtors
in
his
chapt
er
13
cases
expl
aining
that
they
are
r
equired
t
o
make
plan
payments
and
providing
instr
uctio
ns
on
how
to
make
payments.
5.
On
or
about
O
ctob
er
29,
2024,
debto
r
a
ttempted
t
o
file
a
first
amend
ed
cha
pter
13
plan
date
d
Oct
ob
er
28,
2
025,
w
hich
th
e
clerk
’s
o
f
fice
r
eturned
5
becaus
e
the
amend
ed
pla
n
w
as
filed
too
close
to
the
conf
ir
mati
on
hearing
date
and
was
not
accompanied
b
y
the
n
otice
of
amended
plan
r
equired
b
y
lo
cal
rul
es.
This
p
lan
i
n
cluded
the
same
p
ayme
nt
monthly
requ
irement
of
$365.44
p
er
month
(with
the
same
descripti
on
of
th
e
compo
nents
of
payment
that
tota
led
$
365.94
per
mo
nth).
6.
On
November
1,
2024,
d
ebt
or
filed
a
motion
to
w
aive
the
requi
rements
to
provide
notic
e
of
the
plan
unde
r
t
h
e
local
rules.
6
The
court
denied
t
his
motio
n
on
the
same
day
in
a
t
ext
only
order,
7
which
prov
ided
th
at
“[t]h
e
prelimin
ary
,
n
on-evid
enti
ary
h
earing
on
confirmation
of
the
debto
r’s
p
lan
will
proceed
on
Nov
ember
25th
as
sc
hedule
d.
If
th
e
D
e
btor
still
w
ishes
to
file
a
modified
plan
at
the
ti
me
of
th
e
confirmatio
n
he
ari
n
g,
he
ma
y
requ
est
denia
l
o
f
confirmatio
n
with
le
ave
to
file
an
a
me
nded
p
lan
at
th
at
tim
e.”
4
ECF
No.
25,
filed
O
ctober
23,
2024.
5
ECF
No.
34,
ente
red
O
ctober
29,
2024.
6
ECF
No.
41,
filed
Nov
e
mber
1,
2024.
7
ECF
No.
44,
ente
red
N
o
vemb
er
1,
2024.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
3
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
7.
On
or
about
N
ovemb
er
1
,
2024,
debto
r
attempte
d
to
file
a
second
amended
chapte
r
13
pla
n
d
ate
d
November
1
,
2025.
The
cle
rk’s
offic
e
return
ed
th
is
plan
8
becaus
e
it
w
as
not
accompanied
by
th
e
notice
of
amend
ed
plan
r
e
quired
by
lo
cal
r
ules,
p
o
inting
out
that
th
e
court
denied
debto
r’s
req
uest
to
waiv
e
the
notic
e
r
equireme
nt.
8.
On
November
25,
2024,
t
he
court
held
a
confirmati
on
hearing
and
or
ally
de
nied
confirmation
of
the
debto
r’s
in
itial
chapte
r
1
3
plan
because
th
e
debtor
w
ant
ed
to
file
an
amend
ed
plan.
9
Neit
her
the
chapte
r
13
trustee
nor
the
debt
o
r
informe
d
the
c
ourt
th
at
t
he
debtor
h
ad
not
yet
made
a
ny
plan
p
ayme
nts
to
the
chapte
r
13
tr
uste
e.
9.
On
November
26,
2024,
t
he
court
ente
red
its
writt
e
n
order
deny
ing
con
firma
ti
on
of
the
debto
r’s
pla
n.
1
0
The
order
gav
e
debto
r
1
4
d
a
ys
to
file
an
a
mend
ed
pl
a
n
,
or
th
e
cas
e
would
be
dismiss
ed.
10.
On
or
about
D
e
cemb
e
r
4
,
2024,
debto
r
atte
mpted
t
o
file
a
pla
n
denomi
nated
the
“third
amended
”
plan
d
ate
d
Dec
e
mber
4
,
2024.
T
he
clerk
’s
offic
e
retu
rn
ed
this
plan
because
it
was
file
d
too
clo
se
to
the
c
onfirmation
hea
ring
and
was
not
acc
omp
anie
d
by
the
notice
of
amended
plan
r
equired
b
y
lo
cal
rul
es.
1
1
This
pla
n
provid
ed
for
a
m
onthly
pa
yment
of
$482.
11.
On
December
10,
2024,
debtor
filed
a
fi
rst
amend
ed
pla
n
dated
D
ec
emb
er
11,
2024.
1
2
This
first
amende
d
plan
was
a
c
comp
anie
d
by
the
requir
ed
lo
cal
for
m
notice
of
amended
plan.
This
first
amended
plan
provid
ed
for
p
aym
e
nts
of
$510
per
m
onth.
12.
On
January
23,
2025,
the
court
held
a
he
arin
g
and
o
rall
y
denie
d
con
firmation
of
the
first
amended
plan
d
a
ted
December
11,
2024,
because
d
ebtor
w
ante
d
to
file
anoth
er
amended
plan.
1
3
Debt
or
ass
erte
d
tha
t
there
was
some
confusi
on
about
plan
payments
.
Counsel
for
th
e
chapte
r
13
tr
uste
e
com
m
ente
d
that
he
had
s
een
a
f
urther
dra
ft
plan
amend
m
ent
fro
m
debt
or
th
at
8
ECF
No.
46,
ente
red
N
o
vemb
er
1,
2024.
9
ECF
No.
59,
filed
Nov
e
mber
25,
2024.
1
0
ECF
No.
60,
ente
red
N
o
vemb
er
26,
2024.
1
1
ECF
No.
68,
ente
red
D
e
cemb
er
4,
2024.
1
2
ECF
No.
76,
filed
D
ecember
1
0,
2024.
1
3
ECF
No.
91,
filed
Janu
a
ry
2
3,
2025.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
4
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
provided
for
no
p
ayments
for
tw
o
months,
which
he
t
hought
would
be
appr
opriate
g
iven
t
he
debtor’s
cir
cumstances.
Howeve
r,
neither
the
cha
pte
r
13
tr
ustee
nor
th
e
de
btor
informed
th
e
court
th
at
th
e
debtor
as
of
th
at
ti
me
h
ad
ma
de
no
p
la
n
payme
nts
to
the
chapt
er
13
trustee.
Th
e
court
did
not
comment
on
any
term
s
of
t
he
potent
ial
new
draft
plan,
as
it
w
as
not
before
th
e
court.
13.
On
January
24,
2025,
the
court
enter
ed
it
s
writt
en
order
denying
confirmati
on
of
the
debto
r’s
f
irst
amende
d
plan
dated
D
e
cem
be
r
1
1
,
2024.
1
4
This
order
gav
e
debtor
14
days
to
file
an
amend
ed
plan,
or
t
he
case
would
be
dismisse
d.
14.
Debt
or
did
not
time
ly
file
an
amended
pl
a
n.
The
c
ase
was
d
ismisse
d
on
Febru
ary
14,
2025.
1
5
15.
On
Feb
ruary
20,
2025,
d
ebto
r
file
d
a
mo
tion
to
re
open
the
c
ase.
1
6
Among
other
thin
gs,
debto
r
repres
ente
d
to
the
court
in
the
m
otion
that
“[a]
t
no
point
in
th
is
case
has
D
ebt
or
mis
sed
a
deadli
ne
that
w
ould
have
warrante
d
dis
missa
l.”
16.
On
Feb
ruary
21,
2025,
d
ebto
r
file
d
an
amended
m
otion
to
reopen
th
e
cas
e.
1
7
Among
other
things,
debtor
repr
e
sente
d
to
the
cou
r
t
in
the
amended
motio
n
that
“[a
]t
no
poin
t
did
Debtor
fail
to
meet
a
deadli
ne
or
intentionally
delay
proc
eedin
gs.”
17.
On
or
about
F
ebrua
ry
27,
2025,
debt
or
attempted
t
o
file
a
s
econd
amended
p
lan
dated
J
anua
ry
22,
2025.
1
8
This
pla
n
proposed
that
d
ebtor
would
make
month
ly
payment
s
of
$0
for
th
e
first
tw
o
months,
th
en
$532
th
ere
after.
The
clerk’
s
of
fic
e
returne
d
th
is
plan
because
th
e
chapte
r
13
c
ase
h
ad
be
en
dis
missed
and
was
still
closed
at
that
time
.
1
9
1
4
ECF
No.
92,
ente
red
J
anuary
2
4,
2025.
1
5
ECF
No.
95,
ente
red
Fe
bruary
14,
2025.
1
6
ECF
No.
97,
filed
February
20,
2025.
1
7
ECF
No.
98,
filed
February
21,
2025.
1
8
ECF
No.
102,
ente
red
F
ebruary
27,
2025.
1
9
Id.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
5
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
18.
On
March
13,
2025,
th
e
court
held
a
he
arin
g
on
t
he
debtor’s
motion
to
reo
p
en
th
e
case
and
g
ran
ted
th
e
m
otion.
2
0
The
court
iss
ued
a
m
inute
order
r
equir
ing
deb
tor
to
fil
e
an
amended
plan
no
lat
er
th
an
March
20,
2025.
19.
On
March
14,
2025,
th
e
court
ente
r
ed
i
ts
writt
en
order
s
ettin
g
asid
e
dis
missal
and
reop
enin
g
the
c
a
se.
2
1
20.
On
March
19,
2025,
d
ebtor
attempted
to
file
his
se
cond
amended
pl
an
d
ated
March
19,
2025.
2
2
This
pla
n
proposed
paying
mont
hly
payments
of
$0
for
th
e
first
four
months,
and
then
$
569
per
mo
nth
thereafter.
Th
e
debtor
s
ent
multi
ple
v
ersio
ns
of
th
is
document
to
the
clerk’s
of
fice,
and
the
cle
rk’s
offic
e
i
nitially
only
docketed
one
o
f
them.
2
3
21.
On
March
20,
2025,
th
e
clerk’s
of
fice
returned
th
e
pla
n
that
was
dock
eted,
because
th
e
plan
did
not
in
clude
a
c
u
rrent
v
ersion
of
the
notice
of
amended
plan
requ
ired
by
local
rule
s
and
the
certif
i
cate
of
s
e
rvic
e
po
rtio
n
of
the
form
was
not
filled
o
ut
to
show
s
ervic
e
on
all
requ
ired
p
arties.
2
4
22.
On
April
24,
2025,
the
d
ebto
r
appe
ared
at
th
e
pro
posed
con
firmation
he
ari
ng
date
for
th
e
se
cond
amended
plan
d
ated
Mar
ch
19,
20
25
(although
at
that
tim
e,
th
ere
was
no
pl
an
on
file
to
be
consid
ered).
2
5
The
court
advised
d
ebt
or
t
hat
he
did
not
have
a
pl
a
n
on
file,
since
the
one
he
attempted
to
file
was
retu
rned
by
the
cle
rk’s
offic
e.
Th
e
cou
rt
note
d
that
it
did
not
appear
that
debtor
had
serv
ed
this
secon
d
amend
ed
plan
o
n
all
his
cre
ditors.
The
d
e
btor
believed
h
e
had
filed
this
second
amende
d
plan,
describ
ing
how
h
e
tr
ied
t
o
file
it.
Howeve
r,
it
w
as
clea
r
that
debtor
had
not
serv
ed
this
second
amend
ed
plan
o
n
all
his
credito
rs.
The
c
ourt
instructed
debtor
to
file
an
amended
pl
an,
obta
in
a
court
date
from
t
he
courtroom
depu
ty,
fil
e
the
corr
ect
notic
e
of
2
0
ECF
No.
104,
ente
red
M
arch
14,
2025.
2
1
ECF
No.
106,
ente
red
M
arch
14,
2025.
2
2
ECF
No.
109,
filed
Ma
r
ch
19,
2025.
2
3
On
April
24,
2025,
the
c
lerk
docketed
ano
ther
v
ersion
of
the
debto
r’s
se
cond
amended
plan
dated
M
arch
19,
2025.
E
CF
No.
112,
filed
March
19,
2025
(th
is
docket
ent
ry
was
amend
ed
on
April
24,
2025).
2
4
ECF
No.
110,
ente
red
M
arch
20,
2025.
2
5
ECF
No.
113,
filed
April
24,
2025.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
6
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
that
amended
pla
n,
se
rve
that
amended
plan
o
n
all
his
credito
rs,
inclu
ding
his
unsecur
ed
credit
ors,
a
nd
file
a
co
rrect
certif
ic
ate
o
f
se
r
vice
in
dicatin
g
servic
e
was
mad
e.
The
cou
rt
requir
ed
debtor
to
fil
e
and
se
rve
t
h
is
new
amended
p
lan
u
s
ing
the
corre
ct
local
fo
rm
of
notice
no
la
ter
th
an
May
8,
2025.
At
this
hea
ring
neither
th
e
ch
apter
1
3
trustee
n
or
th
e
debto
r
informed
th
e
cou
rt
that
the
debto
r
sti
ll
had
made
no
plan
payments
to
the
chapter
13
truste
e.
23.
On
May
6,
2025,
the
deb
tor
filed
his
secon
d
amen
ded
plan
dated
May
6
,
20
25.
2
6
This
pla
n
proposed
month
ly
paym
ents
of
$0
for
eig
ht
months,
$
582
for
one
month,
and
then
$610
thereafter.
24.
On
June
5,
2025,
the
cou
rt
held
a
h
earing
on
con
fir
matio
n
of
t
his
second
a
me
nded
plan.
2
7
There
wer
e
n
o
obje
ctions
to
th
is
second
amended
p
lan
a
nd
the
chapte
r
13
trustee
submit
ted
a
proposed
order
confirming
th
is
second
amended
plan
b
efor
e
the
hearing.
How
ever,
the
court
did
not
sign
the
proposed
orde
r
and
h
eld
t
he
hearin
g
b
ecaus
e
the
c
ourt
was
con
c
erne
d
about
lack
of
se
rvice
o
f
th
is
second
amended
pl
an
on
credito
rs.
Specifi
call
y,
th
ere
was
no
evidence
in
th
e
record
th
at
the
debtor
h
ad
ever
s
er
ved
this
second
amend
ed
plan
on
all
his
credit
ors.
In
f
act,
debto
r
had
not
served
th
e
s
econ
d
amended
plan
on
all
his
cre
ditors,
and
d
id
not
serve
many
o
f
the
c
r
edit
ors
w
ho
had
filed
proo
fs
o
f
claim.
The
cou
rt
was
als
o
concerned
about
wheth
er
th
e
Ba
nk
rup
tcy
Code
provid
ed
authority
for
confirm
ation
of
a
pla
n
that
did
not
require
payments
for
the
first
eight
months
o
f
th
e
case.
25.
At
the
hearing,
th
e
chapt
er
13
tr
ustee
disclosed
th
at
debtor
made
his
first
p
la
n
payment
to
the
chapte
r
1
3
for
$
580
on
May
1,
20
2
5,
and
debtor
made
his
s
econd
payment
of
$612
on
June
3,
2025.
This
was
th
e
first
ti
me
th
e
court
was
in
form
ed
th
at
no
payments
wer
e
made
t
o
the
c
hapt
er
13
tr
ustee
in
this
case
be
fore
M
ay
1,
2025.
2
6
ECF
No.
114,
filed
May
6,
2025.
2
7
ECF
No.
115,
filed
June
5,
2025.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
7
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
26.
On
June
6,
2025,
the
cou
rt
entere
d
an
orde
r
denyin
g
con
firmation
of
the
se
cond
amended
plan
d
ated
May
6,
2025,
due
to
lack
of
r
equired
servi
ce
and
b
ec
a
use
the
seco
nd
amended
plan
did
not
c
o
mply
with
th
e
Ba
nkrup
tcy
C
ode.
27.
On
June
9,
2025,
the
cou
rt
issued
an
orde
r
to
show
cause
why
the
c
ase
sh
ould
not
be
dismiss
ed
or
converte
d
to
cha
pter
7
,
based
on
debtor’s
fail
ur
e
to
comp
ly
with
11
U.S.C.
sectio
n
1326(a)
(1).
2
8
28.
On
June
9,
2025,
the
deb
tor
filed
a
w
ritt
en
r
espon
se
to
the
order
to
show
c
a
use
2
9
citing
certain
c
ase
author
i
ty
(describ
ed
below
),
an
d
a
certif
i
cate
of
s
e
rvic
e
f
or
the
response.
3
0
29.
On
June
11,
2025,
the
de
b
tor
uploaded
a
prop
os
ed
order
dis
cha
rging
th
e
or
der
to
show
cause.
3
1
Later
th
at
s
a
me
d
ay,
th
e
court
struck
th
e
proposed
order
as
pr
e
matu
rely
lodged,
and
because
it
did
not
comply
with
th
e
lo
cal
rule
s
for
formatting
of
ord
ers.
3
2
30.
On
June
17,
2025,
the
de
b
tor
file
d
a
second
writ
te
n
response
to
the
order
to
show
cause.
3
3
This
document
was
not
an
exa
ct
duplicate
of
debtor’s
first
r
esponse
to
the
order
to
show
cause,
but
ma
de
sim
ilar
p
oints
and
cite
d
simila
r
a
uthorit
ies.
D
ebto
r
asserte
d
in
this
response
that
he
“now
inte
nds
to
furthe
r
revis
e
th
e
pla
n
to
expre
ssly
refle
ct
sta
tutory
com
pliance
and
elimin
ate
any
appe
arance
of
d
efaul
t
at
th
e
outse
t
of
the
pla
n
perio
d.”
3
4
Debt
or
said
in
the
response
th
at
he
“has
prep
ared
an
updated
cred
itor
matrix
and
in
cluded
those
cla
imants
in
the
Certificate
o
f
Service
atta
ched
to
this
Re
sponse,”
but
th
e
r
espons
e
has
no
certi
ficate
o
f
service
o
r
li
st
of
credit
ors
s
erv
ed.
No
add
itional
certi
ficate
o
f
servi
ce
h
as
be
en
filed.
31.
At
the
hearing
on
th
e
o
rd
er
to
show
caus
e,
debtor
i
ndicat
ed
th
at
th
e
se
cond
written
response
to
the
order
to
s
how
cause
was
an
unin
te
nded
duplicate
and
s
houl
d
be
dis
regard
ed.
2
8
ECF
No.
120,
ente
red
J
u
ne
9,
2025.
2
9
ECF
No.
121,
File
d
Jun
e
9,
2025.
3
0
ECF
No.
122,
filed
June
9,
2025.
3
1
ECF
No.
123,
filed
June
11,
2025.
3
2
ECF
No.
124,
ente
red
J
u
ne
11,
2025.
3
3
ECF
No.
131,
filed
June
17,
2025.
3
4
It
is
uncle
ar
to
this
court
how
debto
r
could
r
evise
history
to
reflect
that
he
m
ade
payments
he
did
not
m
ake.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
8
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
32.
This
is
debto
r’s
fifth
ban
kruptcy
c
ase.
He
p
revio
usly
file
d
the
f
ollowing
four
cases:
Date
Case
Number
Chapter
Bankruptcy
Court
Venue
Outcome
03/17/1
995
95-31202
7
W.D.
Wash.
Standard
D
ischa
rge
06/2
7/1
995
06/16/2
003
03-36774
7
D.
Oregon
Sta
ndard
D
ischa
rge
09/2
5/2
003
06/29/2
011
11-35656
7
D.
Oregon
Sta
ndard
D
ischa
rge
10/0
5/2
011
05/17/2
024
24-31383
7
D.
Oregon
Sta
ndard
D
ischa
rge
09/2
0/2
024
Analysi
s
The
Ba
nkruptc
y
Code
r
e
quires
th
at
debtors
comm
ence
making
p
ayments
“
not
la
ter
th
an
30
days
afte
r
th
e
date
o
f
the
filin
g
of
t
he
pla
n
or
th
e
order
for
r
elie
f,
w
hiche
v
er
is
earlie
r
,
in
the
amount—(A)
proposed
b
y
the
plan
t
o
the
tr
ustee
.
.
.”
3
5
Debt
or
w
a
s
requir
ed
to
make
a
payment
of
$365.44
to
the
cha
pte
r
13
trustee
no
la
ter
th
an
November
1,
2024.
Th
er
e
is
no
dispute
that
debtor
did
not
meet
that
r
e
quirement.
Debto
r
did
not
make
any
payment
to
the
chapter
13
t
rust
ee
until
May
1,
2025—six
months
after
his
first
pay
ment
was
due.
A
court
m
ay
dis
miss
or
convert
a
chapte
r
13
case
if
debt
o
r
fails
to
comm
ence
m
akin
g
timely
payments
to
the
chapte
r
13
trustee.
3
6
Deb
tor
m
akes
s
everal
argume
nts
why
the
c
ase
sho
uld
not
be
convert
ed
o
r
d
ism
issed.
First,
debtor
ass
erts
he
is
pro
se
,
did
not
u
ndersta
n
d
that
he
need
ed
to
make
payment
to
the
trustee,
he
believ
ed
he
co
uld
fix
the
problem
wit
h
an
amended
pl
a
n,
and
he
thought
th
e
tr
ustee
would
approv
e
an
ame
nd
ed
pla
n
with
no
payment
req
uirement
fo
r
seve
r
al
mo
nths.
While
the
court
doubts
that
debto
r
w
as
unaw
are
o
f
th
e
requi
rem
ent
to
make
paym
ents,
debtor’s
beliefs
are
not
releva
nt.
The
Ba
nk
r
uptcy
Code
clea
rly
requir
es
commencement
of
pay
ment
within
30
days
and
debto
rs
ar
e
r
equ
ired
t
o
comply
with
the
B
ankruptcy
Code.
3
5
11
U.S.C.
§
1326(a)(1).
3
6
11
U.S.C.
§
1307(c)(4);
Gilbert
v.
Danielso
n
(In
re
Gilb
ert)
,
671
Fed.
Ap
px.
697
(9th
Cir.
2016).
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
9
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISION
Deb
tor
a
lso
cites
c
ase
la
w
that
he
cla
ims
supports
his
p
osition
th
at
th
is
case
should
not
be
converte
d
o
r
d
ismisse
d.
This
case
law
do
es
not
support
debto
r’s
posi
tion,
nor
are
d
ebtor’s
descrip
tions
of
these
c
ase
s
a
ccur
ate.
First,
debtor
c
ites
Walter
s
.
3
7
Debt
or
desc
ribes
the
h
olding
of
Walters
as:
“Th
e
court
allowed
t
he
debtor
to
am
end
the
C
hapte
r
13
pla
n
t
o
include
catch
-up
paym
ents
rather
than
dismi
ssing
the
cas
e.”
3
8
In
fact,
the
cou
rt
m
ade
no
s
uch
holding.
The
court
a
ctually
held
that
a
debtor
could
not
file
an
i
nit
ial
p
lan
requir
ing
one
m
onthly
payment
amount,
then
file
an
amend
ed
plan
with
a
differ
e
nt
monthly
payment,
and
have
t
he
amended
pl
an
retro
act
i
vely
change
wh
at
was
requir
ed
by
th
e
in
itial
plan.
3
9
The
court
said
in
a
footnote
that:
“The
Co
u
rt
can
think
of
no
reaso
n
why
an
amend
ed
plan
c
ould
not
provide
for
the
make-up
o
f
delinqu
ent
payments
or
w
hy
an
amended
pl
an
could
n
ot
specif
ically
provide
th
at
pre-amendment
arrear
ages
be
c
aught
up
through
some
other
m
ean
s.
T
he
Co
urt
also
believe
s
the
debtor
could
hav
e
fil
ed
a
moti
on
to
suspend
the
pre-
a
mend
m
ent
paym
ents
.
How
ever,
since
these
issues
a
re
not
presentl
y
befo
re
the
Court,
it
decli
nes
to
decid
e
th
em.”
Moreov
er,
Wa
lters
was
decid
ed
b
efor
e
th
e
Ba
nkrup
tcy
A
buse
Preventi
on
and
C
onsumer
Protection
Act
of
2005
(BAPCPA
)
a
mend
ed
th
e
language
of
s
ectio
n
1326(a)(1
).
Comm
ents
in
Walters
about
the
prio
r
versio
n
of
se
ctio
n
1326(
a)(1)
are
not
r
elevant
to
th
e
current
lang
u
age
in
section
1326(a)(1).
Nex
t,
debt
or
cites
Cobb.
4
0
Cobb
was
also
decided
b
efore
BAPCPA
amended
the
language
in
section
1326
(a)(1
).
Befor
e
B
APC
PA,
sect
ion
1326(a)(1)
r
equired
d
ebto
rs
to
start
making
payments
within
30
days
after
th
e
plan
is
f
iled,
and
the
ti
me
for
fili
ng
th
e
plan
could
be
extended.
Aft
er
BA
PCP
A,
s
ectio
n
1326(a
)(1)
r
eq
uires
debtors
to
make
p
a
yments
“not
later
th
an
3
7
In
re
W
alters
,
223
B.R.
710
(Ba
nkr.
W.
D.
M
o.
1
998).
3
8
Debt
or’s
R
esponse
to
O
r
der
to
Show
Cause
for
C
onversion
or
Dism
issal,
ECF
No.
121,
filed
June
9,
2025,
p.
2.
3
9
Walters
,
223
B.R.
at
713.
Under
Walters
,
if
it
app
lie
d,
debto
r
would
have
b
een
requi
red
to
make
h
is
initi
al
mo
nthly
payment
of
$
365.44
(or
$
365.94)
by
November
1,
2024.
Walters
does
not
support
debtor
making
no
payments
for
six
months,
or
retroa
ctively
cha
nging
his
payments
amount
to
$0.
4
0
Cobb
v.
Mortgage
Defa
ult
Services
(In
r
e
Cobb)
,
122
B.R.
22
(Bank
r.
E.D.
Pa.
1990).
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
10
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISI
ON
30
days
afte
r
th
e
date
o
f
the
filin
g
of
t
he
pla
n
or
th
e
order
for
r
elie
f,
w
hiche
v
er
is
earlie
r
.”
In
Cobb
,
the
debto
r
delayed
fili
ng
her
in
itial
chapte
r
13
pla
n
for
ove
r
se
ven
m
onth
s,
and
p
ayme
nts
were
not
due
unti
l
she
file
d
her
pla
n.
Th
e
court
h
eld
that
it
would
giv
e
the
debtor
a
ch
ance
to
propose
a
f
easib
le
plan.
4
1
Cobb
is
factually
dis
tinguishable
and
i
s
not
pers
u
asiv
e.
Her
e,
debto
r
filed
plans,
but
did
not
ma
ke
any
p
ayments
to
the
chapter
13
trus
te
e
until
six
months
after
his
case
w
as
filed.
Finally,
debtor
cites
In
r
e
Vega
-Lara
,
No.
18-5032
6-CA
G,
2018
WL
24224
27
(Bankr.
W.D.
Tex.
2018).
Debt
or
d
escribes
th
e
holding
of
Vega-Lara
as:
“
Issue
:
The
pro
se
de
btor
faile
d
to
initi
ate
payment
s
with
in
the
required
timefram
e.
Hold
ing:
The
court
allowed
the
d
ebto
r
to
cure
th
e
paym
ent
dela
y
by
submitti
ng
a
modif
ied
p
lan.
”
4
2
This
cit
ation
is
not
accur
ate,
nor
i
s
the
d
esc
ripti
on
of
th
e
cas
e
and
holding.
The
case
number
does
not
m
atch
t
o
the
Westlaw
citation.
U
sing
the
Westlaw
c
itati
on,
the
cou
rt
is
led
to
In
re
Vega-La
ra
,
No.
17-52
553-CA
G,
2018
WL
242
2427
(Bankr.
W.D.
T
ex.
May
4,
2018),
aff’d
,
No.
5:18-CV-00796-RCL
,
2019
WL
4545613
(W.D.
Tex.
Sept.
19,
2019),
vacate
d
and
remanded
sub
nom.
Matt
er
of
Diaz
,
972
F.3d
713
(5th
Cir
.
2020).
T
his
case
decid
ed
whether
a
debtor
had
to
turn
over
t
a
x
refunds
or
if
d
ebto
r
cou
ld
pro-rate
them
on
Sch
e
dule
I,
and
whether
a
plan
form
requir
ed
by
loc
al
rule
could
be
mo
dified.
4
3
Although
th
e
case
name
matches
w
h
at
debtor
cited,
this
case
did
not
involve
a
pro
se
debt
or,
h
as
been
v
acate
d
(whi
c
h
debto
r
did
not
disclose),
and
th
e
is
sues
decided
a
re
not
even
remo
tely
th
e
sa
me
a
s
the
i
ssu
es
in
this
case.
Using
the
case
do
cket
number,
t
he
court
is
le
d
In
re
S
t
ewart,
case
no.
18-50326
(Ba
nkr.
W.
D.
T
ex.
2018).
Stewart
was
a
si
mp
le
no
asset
chapte
r
7
c
ase
with
no
written
opinions.
A
s
far
as
this
court
can
find,
th
ere
is
no
case
c
a
lled
In
re
V
ega-L
ara
that
says
anyth
ing
like
what
th
e
debtor
claim
s
it
says.
4
1
Cobb
,
122
B.R.
at
27-28.
4
2
Debt
or’s
R
esponse
to
O
r
der
to
Show
Cause
for
C
onversion
or
Dism
issal,
ECF
No.
121,
filed
June
9,
2025,
p.
2.
4
3
Vega-Lara
,
2018
WL
24
22427,
*5-8.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
11
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISI
ON
Because
the
re
is
c
ause
to
convert
or
dismiss
th
is
case,
this
c
ourt
next
must
decid
e
between
th
ose
opti
ons.
4
4
In
making
that
deci
sion,
the
court
mu
st
consider
w
hat
is
in
the
best
inte
rest
of
cr
editors
and
t
he
estate,
and
not
what
is
in
the
best
interest
s
of
th
e
debtor.
4
5
At
the
hearin
g
on
the
o
rder
to
s
how
cause
,
n
eith
er
th
e
ch
apter
1
3
trustee
n
o
r
th
e
U
.
S.
Trustee
expr
ess
ed
a
pref
e
ren
c
e
b
etween
con
versio
n
or
d
ismissal.
Based
on
th
e
court’s
revi
e
w
of
debtor
’s
schedul
es,
4
6
it
d
oes
not
a
ppear
likely
th
at
th
ere
are
ass
ets
in
th
is
case
for
a
chapte
r
7
trustee
to
admi
nister.
The
debtor
is
ineligib
le
to
rec
eive
a
discharge
in
this
cas
e
.
4
7
The
court
se
es
no
bene
fit
to
cre
ditors
and
the
estate
of
conversion
of
this
case.
Th
erefore,
th
e
cour
t
will
dismiss
this
case.
At
th
e
hearing
on
th
e
o
rd
er
to
show
caus
e,
the
cou
rt
asked
the
d
ebto
r
ho
w
h
e
did
the
resea
rch
to
obtain
the
c
ase
s
he
cited
in
his
r
espons
e
to
the
order
to
show
cause.
Debto
r
admitt
ed
that
he
used
artif
ici
al
in
telli
gence
on
his
computer.
This
use
of
artif
icia
l
int
elligence
provided
result
s
to
debtor
that
w
ere
i
naccu
rate,
ir
relevant,
a
nd
useless.
When
an
attorney
or
unr
e
presented
p
arty
pres
ents
informa
tion
to
a
court
,
tha
t
perso
n
certi
fies
to
th
e
cou
rt
that
“to
the
best
o
f
th
e
pe
rson
’s
knowledge,
in
form
ation,
and
belief,
fo
rmed
after
an
in
quiry
reasonable
under
th
e
ci
rcums
tanc
es,—
.
.
.
th
e
legal
contenti
ons
therein
are
warr
ante
d
by
exis
ting
la
w
or
by
a
n
onf
rivolo
us
argument
for
the
extension,
modif
ication,
or
revers
al
of
existin
g
law
o
r
the
establish
ment
of
ne
w
law.
4
8
Deb
tor’s
citation
of
case
authority
provided
by
art
if
icia
l
intellig
ence,
with
o
ut
determ
ining
that
the
case
authority
act
u
ally
says
w
hat
th
e
artifi
cial
in
telli
gence
claimed
it
s
ays,
did
not
meet
this
standard
for
a
reason
able
inquiry.
If
an
atto
rney
or
party
wish
es
to
cite
auth
ority
prov
ided
b
y
artif
icial
in
telligence,
thi
s
court
expe
cts
the
atto
rney
or
party
submitti
ng
a
document
containing
that
authority
to
review
t
hat
authority
perso
nally
.
The
attorney
or
p
arty
m
ust
in
dependently
4
4
Jiminez
v.
ARCP
1,
LL
C
(In
r
e
Jim
enez)
,
613
B.R
.
5
37,
543
(9th
Cir.
BAP
2020).
4
5
Brown
v.
Sobczak
(In
r
e
Sobczak)
,
369
B.R.
512,
519
(9th
Cir.
BAP
2
007).
4
6
ECF
No.
23,
filed
O
ctober
23,
2024.
4
7
See
ECF
No.
8,
filed
Octo
ber
3,
2024.
Debtor
file
d
no
objectio
n
to
this
notic
e.
4
8
Fed.
R.
Bankr.
P.
9011(
b)(2).
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
12
of
12
-
M
EMORANDUM
DECISI
ON
verify
that
the
inform
atio
n
about
that
auth
orit
y
to
be
p
rovid
ed
to
the
cou
rt
is
corre
ct
befor
e
submit
ting
the
document
to
the
court.
Failu
r
e
to
d
o
so
does
n
ot
com
ply
with
Rule
9011.
Alth
ough
this
court
cou
ld
con
sider
im
posing
sanc
tions
against
debtor
unde
r
Ru
le
9011(c)
in
th
is
case,
the
court
se
e
s
no
need
to
do
so
given
that
th
is
case
will
be
dismis
sed.
#
#
#
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
133
Filed
07/07/25
Page
1
of
5
-
ORDER
ON
MOT
ION
T
O
A
LTER
O
R
AMEND
JUDGMENT
P
URS
UANT
TO
FED.
R.
BA
NKR.
P.
9023
AND
FE
D
R.
CIV.
P.
59(E)
UN
ITED
STATES
BAN
KRUPTCY
COURT
FOR
THE
D
IST
R
ICT
O
F
OREGON
This
ma
tter
came
b
efor
e
the
cou
rt
on
debtor’s
Mot
ion
to
Alter
or
A
mend
J
u
dgment
Pursuant
to
Fed.
R.
Ba
nk
r.
P.
9023
and
Fed
R.
Civ
.
P.
59(e)
(the
“Mo
tion
to
Alte
r
or
Amend
”).
1
Legal
St
andard
With
exc
eptio
ns
not
rele
v
ant
here,
Fed.
R.
Bankr.
P.
9023
makes
Fed.
R.
C
iv.
P.
5
9(e)
applicable
to
bankrupt
cy
cases.
The
st
andards
for
evaluatin
g
a
mo
tion
unde
r
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
59(e)
a
r
e
well
establis
hed.
“
In
gen
eral,
there
ar
e
fou
r
basic
g
rounds
upo
n
which
a
Ru
le
59(e
)
motio
n
may
be
granted:
(1)
if
such
motion
is
nece
ss
ary
to
corr
ect
ma
nif
est
err
ors
o
f
law
or
f
act
upon
which
the
j
udgment
rests
;
(2)
if
such
m
otion
is
necessary
to
p
resent
ne
wly
dis
covered
o
r
previo
usly
unavaila
ble
e
videnc
e;
(3)
if
su
ch
m
otion
is
necessary
to
p
reven
t
ma
nifest
in
justic
e;
or
(4)
if
the
amendm
ent
is
ju
stified
by
an
in
terv
enin
g
change
in
con
trolling
la
w
.”
2
Although
1
ECF
No.
139,
filed
July
7,
2025.
2
Allsta
te
Ins.
Co.
v.
Herr
on
,
634
F.3d
1101,
1111
(9th
Cir
.
2011).
In
re
Eugene
Ez
ra
Perkin
s,
Debto
r.
Case
No.
24
-
32731
-
thp1
3
ORDER
ON
MOT
ION
T
O
ALT
ER
OR
AMEND
JU
DGME
N
T
PURSU
ANT
TO
FED.
R.
BA
NKR
.
P.
9023
AND
FE
D
R
.
CIV.
P.
59(E)
Below
is
an
order
of
the
court.
_______________________________________
TERESA
H.
PEARSON
U.S.
Bankruptcy
Judge
U.S.
BANKRUPTCY
COURT
DISTRICT
OF
OREGON
F
I
L
E
D
July
28,
2025
Clerk,
U.S.
Bankruptcy
Court
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
148
Filed
07/28/25
Page
2
of
5
-
ORDER
ON
MOT
ION
T
O
A
LTER
O
R
AMEND
JUDGMENT
P
URS
UANT
TO
FED.
R.
BA
NKR.
P.
9023
AND
FE
D
R.
CIV.
P.
59(E)
motio
ns
under
Ru
le
5
9(e)
are
not
lim
ited
to
these
grounds,
R
ule
59(e)
“ma
y
not
be
used
to
relit
igate
old
matters,
or
t
o
rais
e
argum
ents
or
pres
ent
evid
enc
e
that
could
h
ave
be
en
raised
p
rior
to
th
e
entry
of
j
udgment
.
”
3
Analysi
s
Debt
or
has
not
provided
sufficient
grounds
fo
r
th
is
court
to
alte
r
or
amend
its
judgme
nt.
The
court
will
addr
ess
ea
ch
of
def
endant’
s
argume
nts
below.
Debt
or
first
asse
rts
that
“
th
is
Court
previ
ously
dismis
sed
debtor’s
cas
e
due
to
an
administr
ativ
e
error
within
the
Court’s
own
sy
stems,
an
e
rro
r
ackn
o
wle
dged
and
rectif
i
ed
b
y
reop
enin
g
the
c
a
se.”
4
This
is
in
correct
.
The
court
d
ismisse
d
debto
r’s
c
ase
o
n
February
14,
2025,
because
d
ebtor
f
aile
d
to
c
omply
with
an
order
requ
iring
debtor
to
fil
e
an
am
ended
plan
within
14
days.
5
Debt
or
ass
erte
d
that
he
had
uploaded
an
amended
pla
n
via
th
e
cou
rt’s
public
document
upload
on
Feb
rua
ry
2,
20
2
5.
Alth
ough
the
court
had
no
reco
rd
of
that
atte
mpted
fili
ng,
the
court
reop
ened
th
e
debt
or’s
cas
e
to
allo
w
the
debtor
to
fi
le
his
amended
plan.
6
The
court
did
not
determin
e
th
is
was
an
error
in
the
cou
rt’s
syste
ms.
Inste
ad,
the
cou
rt
gave
t
he
debtor
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
that
he
d
id
a
ttempt
to
file
his
amended
plan.
Debt
or
next
ass
erts
th
at
he
misu
ndersto
od
and
beli
eved
that
pla
n
paym
e
nts
were
not
requ
ired
until
confirm
ation
of
his
plan,
and
that
the
chapte
r
13
trustee
mis
le
d
him
about
his
payment
obligations.
7
The
Bankruptc
y
Code
r
equi
res
that
debto
rs
comm
ence
makin
g
paym
ents
“not
later
th
an
30
days
af
ter
th
e
date
o
f
the
fili
ng
of
th
e
pla
n
or
th
e
ord
er
f
o
r
rel
ief,
w
hichever
is
earli
er,
in
the
amount—
(
A)
proposed
by
the
p
l
an
to
the
trust
ee
.
.
.”
8
The
Bankruptc
y
Code
does
not
contain
an
exc
eption
for
debto
rs
who
misunde
rstand
their
obligations.
This
court
can
not
change
the
requir
ements
of
the
Bankrup
tcy
C
ode
established
by
Congress.
The
court
has
3
Exxon
Ship
ping
Co.
v.
B
aker
(2008)
5
54
US
471,
485,
128
S.Ct.
2
605,
2617,
fn.
5
(inte
rnal
citations
and
quotations
omit
ted).
4
Motio
n
to
Alter
o
r
Amend,
p.
1.
5
Memorandum
Decision,
p.
4,
¶¶
13-14.
6
See
Record
o
f
Proce
edin
g
and
Min
ute
Orde
r,
ECF
N
o.
104,
ente
red
M
a
rch
14,
2025.
7
Motio
n
to
Alter
o
r
Amend,
pp,
2-6.
8
11
U.S.C.
§
1326(a)(1).
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
148
Filed
07/28/25
Page
3
of
5
-
ORDER
ON
MOT
ION
T
O
A
LTER
O
R
AMEND
JUDGMENT
P
URS
UANT
TO
FED.
R.
BA
NKR.
P.
9023
AND
FE
D
R.
CIV.
P.
59(E)
revie
wed
th
e
information
debtor
submitte
d
with
his
mo
tion
and
does
not
find
th
at
th
e
chapter
13
trustee
m
isled
the
debto
r.
The
trustee’s
counsel
ex
pressly
stated
to
the
debt
or
that
he
was
not
sure
th
at
th
e
court
would
accept
the
d
ebto
r’s
p
r
opo
sed
p
ayme
nt
structu
r
e
th
at
did
not
require
payments
for
the
first
8
months
of
the
case.
9
While
the
trustee’
s
counse
l
addressed
t
he
mathematical
fe
asibilit
y
of
th
e
pla
n,
the
trus
tee’s
counsel
did
not
misle
ad
th
e
debtor.
In
any
event,
a
ch
apter
13
truste
e
d
oes
not
have
the
abil
ity
to
overrid
e
th
e
plain
r
e
quir
ements
of
the
Bankruptcy
C
ode.
Debt
or
next
ass
erts
th
at
th
e
court’s
con
c
e
rns
abou
t
debto
r’s
citatio
n
of
in
accura
te,
irrelevant,
and
useless
m
ateria
ls
gen
erated
by
arti
f
icial
intelligence
contribu
ted
to
an
“atmo
sphere
o
f
undue
p
r
ejudic
e
ag
ainst
Debtor
a
s
a
pro
se
liti
gant.
”
1
0
This
a
sse
rtio
n
lacks
merit.
1
1
Regardle
ss
of
the
ma
terials
debtor
cite
d,
it
is
u
ndisputed
that
the
debto
r
did
not
comply
with
11
U.S.C
.
§
1326(a)(1),
a
nd
the
case
was
pro
perly
dismisse
d
for
that
r
easo
n.
Debt
or
asse
rts
that
11
U.
S.C
.
§
1326(a)(1)
i
nclude
s
th
e
phrase
“
u
nless
the
c
ourt
orders
otherwise
,”
whi
ch
gran
ts
the
cou
rt
th
e
dis
cretion
not
to
enforce
th
e
p
ayme
nt
req
uirement
in
th
at
sectio
n.
1
2
While
the
statu
te
d
oes
contain
that
phr
as
e,
it
is
not
relevant
under
the
f
acts
of
th
is
9
Motio
n
to
Alter
o
r
Amend,
Exhibit
C
,
p.
1
(p.
56
of
the
combined
.pdf
file
).
1
0
Motio
n
to
Alter
o
r
Amend,
p.
6.
1
1
If
a
nything,
the
court
not
es
th
at
it
s
decis
ion
not
to
im
pose
sa
nctio
ns
on
this
pro
se
debtor
was
more
leni
ent
th
an
the
cou
rt
lik
ely
would
have
b
een
if
the
same
transgr
essio
n
had
b
een
commit
ted
by
counsel.
1
2
Debt
or
relies
on
the
foll
owing
auth
orit
y
to
support
this
argument
:
“
See,
e.
g.,
Segarra-
Miranda
v.
Acosta
-Ri
v
era
,
597
F.3d
1
(1st
Cir
.
2009)
(excus
ing
a
m
issed
statutory
deadli
ne
by
explicitly
relying
on
the
‘unless
the
c
ourt
orde
rs
otherwise’
lang
uage
within
sim
ilar
Code
provisions,
hold
ing
that
equities
can
outw
eigh
tech
nical
default
).
Th
ere
is
n
o
such
c
ase
lo
cate
d
at
this
citatio
n.
The
case
locat
ed
at
597
F.3d
1
is
I
ndigo
Am.,
Inc.
v.
Big
I
m
pressions,
LLC
,
597
F.3d
1
(1st
Cir
.
2010).
Indigo
involv
ed
th
e
ap
pellate
r
evie
w
of
a
d
efa
ul
t
judgment,
when
no
lic
ensed
attorney
h
a
d
app
eared
for
the
d
efa
ulting
c
orporate
d
efen
d
ant
and
is
not
relevant
he
re.
Debt
or
appe
ars
to
be
ref
e
rring
to
Segarra-Mirand
a
v.
Acosta-Riv
era
(In
re
Acosta
-Riv
era
)
,
557
F.3d
8,
9
(1st
Cir
.
2009).
In
th
at
cas
e,
th
e
Fi
rst
Ci
rcu
it
Court
of
Appeals
held
th
at
th
e
bankrup
tcy
c
ou
rt
could
waive
a
filin
g
r
equir
eme
n
t
under
Section
521(9)
where
“there
is
no
continuing
need
for
the
i
nforma
tion
or
a
w
a
iver
is
need
ed
to
pr
event
autom
atic
dismis
sal
from
furth
erin
g
a
d
ebtor's
abus
ive
c
onduct.”
Id.
557
F.3
d.
at
14.
The
court
explicitly
did
not
decid
e
wheth
er
bank
ruptcy
cou
r
ts
had
“unfette
r
ed
dis
cretion
to
waive
the
dis
closu
re
requir
ements
ex
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
148
Filed
07/28/25
Page
4
of
5
-
ORDER
ON
MOT
ION
T
O
A
LTER
O
R
AMEND
JUDGMENT
P
URS
UANT
TO
FED.
R.
BA
NKR.
P.
9023
AND
FE
D
R.
CIV.
P.
59(E)
case.
D
ebtor
never
ask
e
d
th
e
court
to
order
th
at
the
requir
ements
of
sectio
n
1326(a)(1
)
not
apply
to
his
case,
and
this
court
did
not
issu
e
such
an
order.
Fo
r
t
he
same
reason,
debtor’s
argum
e
nt
under
se
ctio
n
1326(
a)(3
)
is
unavaili
ng.
Debtor
did
not
file
,
give
n
otice
of,
o
r
request
a
h
ea
ring
on
any
motion
to
modify
or
reduc
e
the
paym
ents
r
equir
ed
unde
r
secti
on
13
26
pendin
g
confirmation
of
his
pla
n,
and
th
e
court
did
not
gra
nt
su
ch
a
motio
n.
At
all
times,
debtor
w
as
subject
to
the
requirem
en
ts
to
make
payme
nt
unde
r
secti
on
1326(a)(1).
Debt
or
does
not
cite,
and
the
court
is
unawa
re
of
a
ny
change
in
th
e
controlling
la
w
applicable
to
this
case.
D
ebto
r
does
not
prof
fer
a
ny
newly
discovered
o
r
p
reviously
unavailable
evidence.
Alth
ough
debto
r
me
ntions
the
death
of
his
roommate
and
c
ompa
nion
in
Decem
ber
2024,
the
debto
r
did
not
r
aise
that
fa
ct
in
connect
io
n
with
the
order
to
show
cause,
ev
en
th
ough
that
fact
was
with
in
debt
or’s
person
al
knowledge.
In
any
even
t,
the
court
was
already
aware
o
f
that
fact
fro
m
on
e
of
debt
or’s
ea
rlier
fili
ngs
in
the
case
.
1
3
Debt
or
cites
Witkowski
f
or
the
proposi
tion
that
“bankruptcy
cou
rts
retain
d
iscretion
in
determin
ing
whether
dis
missa
l
for
in
itial
payment
defaults
under
§
1326(
a
)(1)
is
app
rop
r
iate,
emphasizin
g
that
courts
may
consider
mitigatin
g
or
equitable
cir
cums
tanc
es
if
adequ
ately
demonstrate
d
by
the
d
ebt
or.”
1
4
Witkowski
does
not
stand
for
th
is
proposition,
nor
is
it
binding
authority
in
this
jurisdiction.
In
Witkowski
,
the
de
btor
failed
to
attend
he
r
meetin
g
of
cr
editors
and
offe
r
ed
no
ex
cuse
for
her
failur
e
to
make
payments
to
the
tr
ustee.
The
Witkowski
court
did
not
speculate
on
how
it
would
have
reacted
i
f
the
debto
r
had
done
othe
rwis
e.
In
any
eve
nt,
the
court
is
not
pers
uaded
that
the
d
e
btor
in
this
case
demonstrate
d
equit
able
circums
tanc
es
th
at
would
ju
stify
his
failu
re
to
ma
ke
pla
n
payme
nts.
In
this
case,
the
d
ebtor
repres
ente
d
to
the
cou
rt
tw
ice
in
Fe
brua
ry
2
025
that
h
e
had
not
mis
sed
dea
dlin
es
in
the
case,
even
th
ough
at
th
at
poin
t
he
h
ad
mi
ssed
n
umero
us
req
uired
p
ayments
to
th
e
trustee.
This
case
post.”
Id.
The
cou
rt
doe
s
n
ot
fin
d
Segarra-Miranda
useful
or
rel
evant
to
d
ebto
r’s
argum
ents
in
this
case.
1
3
See
ECF
No.
77,
fil
ed
J
a
nuary
13,
2025.
1
4
Witkowski
v.
Boyajia
n
(In
re
Witkowski)
,
523
B.R.
300
(1s
t
Cir.
BAP
2
014);
M
otion
to
Alter
or
Amend
,
p.
8.
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
148
Filed
07/28/25
Page
5
of
5
-
ORDER
ON
MOT
ION
T
O
A
LTER
O
R
AMEND
JUDGMENT
P
URS
UANT
TO
FED.
R.
BA
NKR.
P.
9023
AND
FE
D
R.
CIV.
P.
59(E)
was
file
d
on
Octo
b
er
2,
2
024,
but
debto
r
did
not
make
any
p
ayment
until
M
ay
1,
2025—a
f
act
that
was
not
disclosed
to
this
court
until
June
5,
2025.
Upon
reviewing
the
d
ebtor’s
mo
tions
and
argum
e
nts
asserte
d,
this
court
c
a
nnot
conclude
that
the
judgment
rests
upon
manifest
erro
rs
of
la
w
or
fa
ct,
or
that
rel
ie
f
is
requir
ed
to
pr
event
manifest
injustic
e
in
this
case.
Debt
or
also
re
quests
relie
f
p
ursuant
to
Fe
d.
R.
Civ
.
P.
60(b),
made
applic
able
by
Fed.
R
.
Bankr.
P.
9024,
on
the
ba
sis
th
at
dis
missal
was
a
result
of
exc
usable
n
egle
c
t
or
misrepresentation
under
Fe
d.
R.
Civ
.
P.
60(b)(1).
In
d
etermining
ex
cus
able
negle
ct,
th
e
cou
rt
must
consider
the
possibil
ity
of
prejudice
to
opposing
parti
es,
th
e
le
ngth
of
t
he
delay,
the
r
eason
for
th
e
delay,
and
wheth
er
th
e
mo
ving
pa
rty
acte
d
in
good
faith
.
1
5
He
re,
debtor
h
as
not
made
a
sh
owing
of
excusable
n
eglect
.
Th
e
le
ngth
of
d
ebto
r’s
d
elay
i
n
making
payment
s
to
the
trustee
w
as
substantia
l,
the
debto
r’s
s
ecured
creditor
was
likel
y
prej
udiced
be
caus
e
it
d
id
not
receive
adequate
p
rotect
ion
paym
ents
for
many
months,
and
debtor
has
not
p
rovid
ed
an
ad
equate
explanation
for
his
delay.
As
se
t
forth
above,
th
e
c
ourt
does
not
see
a
b
asis
to
conclude
that
the
chapte
r
13
tr
uste
e
misrep
rese
nted
anyth
ing
to
the
debto
r.
Fo
r
th
ese
r
eason
s,
d
ebto
r
is
not
ent
itled
to
relief
under
Fed.
R.
Ba
nkr.
P.
9024.
Now,
there
fore,
for
the
r
e
asons
se
t
forth
abov
e,
it
is
ORDERED
that
the
Motion
to
A
lter
or
Amend
is
denied.
#
#
#
cc:
Eugene
E
zra
Perkin
s
1
5
Pioneer
Inv.
S
ervs.
Co
.
v
.
Brunswick
Assocs.
Lt
d.
P’sh
ip
,
507
U.S.
380,
395,
113
S.
Ct.
1489,
1498
(1993).
Case
24-32731-thp13
Doc
148
Filed
07/28/25
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access