[CLBS] Fwd: Local Rules Committee 2017 and Chapter 13 Form Plan

[Paul Ross]

I have been watching this debate without our own state as well as on the
national listservs.

Since I came out in favor of the national form plan instead of just a local
opt out plan at the Seminar, I thought I would present some thoughts for
fodder.  I hope we can have some discussion and that opinions can be know.

I think my opinion has softened some.  In the current plan I make at least
2 changes in every plan, some have as many as 10 changes.  No matter what,
I will have to make those changes now in the nonconforming section of the
plan.  Either way that bugs me, but part of me thinks that with an Idaho
centric plan then we can incorporate some of those changes into the Idaho
model plan and reduce the amount of nonconforming provisions at the end.
But either way, I will likely continue my practice of making numerous
changes, it will just lengthen the plan because they will appear at the end
and are not as easily incorporated as our current plan.

A nice provision is the fold up feature.  If you mark none in a section,
then the rest of the section can be removed thereby shortening the plan.
We can do that in the Idaho version as well.

In Idaho we do things a certain way and have done for a long time.  The 9th
Circuit has also driven some of those eccentricities.  The national model
plan tries to cater to all jurisdictions.  With the model plan, it seems
the argument is much easier for alternatives to our plan where if we stick
with Idaho, we maintain most of the status quo and don't really open up the
options I believe the national plan will for us.

I do like the tally information that the national plan provides.  Our
current plan has none of that, but that is more of a creditor tool as well.

I very much like that the model national plan fits the shape, model, and
outlay of the rest of the schedules.  Plus with modernization in the
future, this form will match and be part of that set.  Plus in previous
Idaho versions we had some poor grammar and layout, which I still think
plague us to some degree.  Other sections are very wordy.  The national
form is much simpler.

With a national plan there will be case law from other jurisdictions which
I think will flow over much easier if we use the same form.  Of course 9th
circuit might be different from 10th, but it would be nice to have case law
from other jurisdictions to help inform our plan and any special
circumstances we might be in.

I believe the national plan helps pull out some of the special interests I
think that are somewhat represented in our Idaho plan.  The national plan
is much more vetted, challenged, and reworked.

I have attached a copy of the national plan.  I also attached the plan for
WD of Michgan, which I like the formatting, but seems a little too wordy.
There are many, many more plans out there.

Having said all that, thoughts, discussion, opinions?

Paul





On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Robert Maynes <MaynesLaw at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear List Mates,
> I’m just following up on the email below with regards to the ch. 13 Form
> Plan.  Any input or suggestions?
> Kindest regards,
> Rob
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Robert Maynes <mayneslaw at hotmail.com<mailto:mayneslaw at hotmail.com>>
> Subject: [CLBS] Local Rules Committee 2017 and Chapter 13 Form Plan
> Date: March 3, 2017 at 3:06:54 PM MST
> To: "clbs at admws.idaho.gov<mailto:clbs at admws.idaho.gov>" <
> clbs at admws.idaho.gov<mailto:clbs at admws.idaho.gov>>
> Cc: Kathleen McCallister <kam at kam13trustee.com<mailto:kam at kam13trustee.com
> >>
>
> Dear List Mates,
>
> I understand from Ms. McCallister that your comments, input and
> suggestions regarding the Chapter 13 Form Plan were requested at the
> seminar a few weeks ago.  She has requested that I send out this reminder
> on the list serve.  If you have suggested changes or revisions, or just
> wish to comment, please respond to this email or off the list serve, if you
> prefer.  We are preparing for our first Local Rules Committee meeting of
> the year and want to be sure everyone has an opportunity to contribute.
>
> In addition, if there are Local Rules that you feel need amending, or a
> Local Rule that you think we are lacking, please let me know and I’ll share
> your ideas and suggestions to the committee.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLBS mailing list
> CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
> http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs
>



-- 
Idaho Bankruptcy Law
T: (208) 219-7997
F: (208) 416-6996

This communication is intended for the party above.  If this e-mail has
been sent to you by mistake, please notify me immediately.  This
information is private and is confidential and unauthorized use can impose
penalties and liabilities.  A client-attorney relationship is not created
without a signed agreement and should not be construed as legal advice
without such an agreement.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Model Plan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1267949 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://admws.idaho.gov/pipermail/clbs/attachments/20170427/c2a73370/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WD Michigan Plan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 451762 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://admws.idaho.gov/pipermail/clbs/attachments/20170427/c2a73370/attachment-0003.pdf>