Skip to content

Debt limit: Pursuant to § 109(e) “only an individual with regular income that owes, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts of less than $360,475 . . . may be a debtor under chapter 13 of this title.”12 For Chapter 13 relief, it is clear that only individuals qualify. C/A No. 12-04833-HB

A debt is considered “liquidated” if the “amount is readily ascertainable.” In re Glance, 487 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy § 109.06(2)(c) (rev. 15th ed. 2006). “In determining whether the amount owed is easily ascertainable, such that the debt is liquidated, it is enough that a minimum claim amount can easily be determined.” In re Sappah, 2012 WL 6139644 at *5.

The Bankruptcy Code does not specifically define “unsecured debt” or “secured debt,” however, the Supreme Court has found that the “definition of ‘debt’ as a ‘liability on a claim’ reveals Congress’ intent that the meanings of ‘debt’ and ‘claim’ be coextensive.” Pennsylvania Dep’t of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 557–58, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990) (superseded by statute in Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 111 S. Ct. 2150, 115 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1991)). As a result, this examination of § 109(e) requires reference to the “secured claim” language in § 506(a) that provides that an “allowed claim of a creditor by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest . . . is a secured claim to the extent of the value of
such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property.” Additionally, pursuant to § 506(a) a claim “is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest . . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim.”

Student loans and Debt limit

Texas declines to follow In re Pratola, 578 B.R. 414 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017). In re Petty (Bankr. E.D. Tex., 2018)

Colorado declines to follow, citing Bailey-Pfeiffer line of cases In re Alonzo, 594 B.R. 693 (Bankr. Colo., 2018)

Illinois declines to follow    – The court noted that this conclusion was overwhelmingly supported by both the Seventh Circuit and other authority. Among the cases cited by the court were In re Day, 747 F.2d 405, 407 (7th Cir. 1984) and In re Knight, 55 F.3d 231, 232 (7th Cir. 1995), in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Chapter 13 cases where the debtors failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements of § 109(e). In re Mosley (Bankr. S.D. Ill., 2018)