Steve C. Thompson

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
STEVE C. THOMPSON, 	No. 10-10415
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Memorandum After Confirmation Hearing
_________________
Chapter 13 debtor Steve Thompson’s plan came before the court on final hearing this date,
some 19 months after the case was filed. Judgment creditors Stephen and Sharon Mayo objected to
confirmation and have moved the court for conversion of the case to Chapter 7.
Pursuant to § 1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court must confirm the plan if the debtor
demonstrates each of nine factors. The debtor having failed to convince the court of at least three, the
plan cannot be confirmed.
Section 1325(a)(3) requires that the debtor demonstrate that the plan has been proposed in good
faith and not by any means forbidden by law. 	Section 1325(a)(7) requires the debtor to show that the
filing of the petition was in good faith. It is abundantly clear that the petition was not filed in good
faith and the plan was not proposed in good faith. The case was filed in order to enable Thompson to
delay enforcement of the Mayo’s unstayed judgment against him. The plan was filed for this purpose,
as well as to give his attorney fees priority over the Mayos. The court is embarrassed that it took so
1
Entered on Docket
September 06, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 10-10415 Doc# 103 Filed: 09/06/11 Entered: 09/06/11 15:19:52 Page 1 of
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
long for the case to be set for final hearing given the clearly abusive nature of the filing and the plan.1
Moreover, Thompson has not even shown that he is lawfully practicing his profession as an
architect. The court cannot therefore find that his continued practice is not forbidden by law.
Section 1325(a)(6) requires the debtor to show that he will be able to make all the payments
and to comply with the plan. The court cannot make this finding because Thompson has failed to
convince the court that his properties, which he supposedly will liquidate years into the plan, have
sufficient equity to pay his debts now, let alone that they will have equity another two years or more in
the future. The court finds his self-serving testimony completely unconvincing.
Thompson having failed to convince the court that each requirement of § 1325(a) has been
met, the Mayos’ objection will be sustained and confirmation denied. Allowing the case to continue in
Chapter 13 would only further Thompson’s bad faith purposes. The court finds that by failing to
vigorously prosecute this case and his prior Chapter 13 case, Thompson has caused unreasonable
delay, and the delay has been prejudicial to the Mayos and other creditors. Accordingly, the court will
grant the Mayo’s motion to convert the case to Chapter 7. Counsel for the Mayos shall submit an
appropriate form of order.
Dated: September 6, 2011
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
1The court is even more embarrassed to note that this is Thompson’s second Chapter 13, his
first, filed in 2009, having been dismissed due to his failure to appear in prosecution of his plan. The
court also notes in passing that Thompson perjured himself in his petition commencing this case,
having stated “None” when required to list prior cases within eight years.
2
Case: 10-10415 Doc# 103 Filed: 09/06/11 Entered: 09/06/11 15:19:52 Page 2 of
2