holding that a creditor's failure to timely object to plan confirmation may be construed as acceptance of the plan
How later courts described this case
- holding that a creditor's failure to timely object to plan confirmation may be construed as acceptance of the plan
- acknowledging “the general maxim that the Bankruptcy Code and Rules [are to] be construed so that their provisions are harmonious with each other”
- noting that the provisions in § 1325(a) are “mandatory requirements for confirmation”
- “[I]f a secured creditor fails to object to confirmation, the creditor will be bound by the confirmed plan’s treatment of its secured claim under § 1325(a) . . . . because the failure to object constitutes acceptance of the plan.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I have previously set out my views with respect to the “hanging paragraph” and the handling of auto retention cases in Chapter 13 proceedings, and I adhere to the views set out there which lead to the affirmance of the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court in this case. See In re: Long, 519 F.3d 288 (6th Cir.2008).