Bobby D. Williams and Cynthia L. Williams

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN RE:
BOBBY D. WILLIAMS and CYNTHIA L.
WILLIAMS,
Debtors.
Case No. 25-10361-T
Chapter 13
ORDER DENYING CONFIRMATION OF DEBTORS’
FIFTH AMENDED CHAPTER 13 PLAN
Before the Court is Debtors’ Fifth Amended Chapter 13 Plan (the “Plan”), 1 filed by Debtors
Bobby 	D. 	Williams 	and 	Cynthia 	L. 	Williams 	(the 	“Debtors”); 	Creditor’s 	Objection 	to
Confirmation of Debtors’ Fifth Amended Chapter 13 Plan, 2 filed by Community Bank Bristow
(the “Bank”); Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation of Plan, 3 filed by the Standing Chapter 13
Trustee, Lonnie D. Eck (the “Trustee”); and the Trustee’s Amended and Supplemented Objection
to Confirmation of Plan. 4 The Court held a telephonic hearing on the matter on July 21, 2026 (the
“Hearing”), after which the Court took the confirmation of Debtors’ Plan under advisement.
Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 5 and venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1408. Reference to the Court of this matter is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Confirmation of plans is a “core” proceeding as that term is defined in 28
U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).
1 ECF No. 63.
2 ECF No. 69.
3 ECF No. 73.
4 ECF No. 76.
5 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Filed/Docketed
Jul 29, 2026
Case 25-10361-T Document 77 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/29/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Background
On March 23, 2025, Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code. 6 It appears from the Schedules that property located at 36041 W.
271st St. South, Bristow, OK 74010 (the “Bristow Property”) serves as Debtors’ principal
residence. Debtors list the Bristow Property as having a current value of $380,000.00, 7 with a
secured claim of $198,085.00. 8 On May 23, 2025, the Bank filed its Amended Proof of Claim No.
4-2 (the “Claim”) in the amount of $207,805.19, with interest due at the rate of 6.50% per year.
The Claim indicates that it is fully secured. It also includes a Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment
which indicates that the principal due is $185,032.92, with accrued interest in the amount of
$16,150.88, and interest accruing at a rate of 6.50% per year thereon from March 24, 2025, fees in
the amount of $3,581.60, and escrow deficiency in the amount of $4,459.62. 9
On May 12, 2026, Debtors filed their fifth amended confirmation plan, which proposes
making mortgage payments to the Bank through the Trustee of $2,219.84 per month for sixty
months. 10 The Plan also proposes making payments towards the arrearage to the Bank through the
Trustee of $400.00 per month for a period of twenty-four months, then $481.26 per month for an
additional thirty-six months. Both the Bank and the Trustee filed objections to confirmation of the
Plan. 11 The Bank objects to the Plan pursuant to §§ 1322(b)(2), 1325(a)(5), and 1326(a)(1)(C),
arguing that the Plan as proposed “fails to pay [the Bank] the full amount of its total claim[.]” 12
According to the Bank’s objection, Debtors executed and delivered a promissory note to the Bank
6 ECF No. 1.
7 Id. at 10.
8 Id. at 17.
9 See Claim No. 4-2.
10 ECF No. 63.
11 ECF Nos. 69, 73, 76.
12 ECF No. 69 at 1.
Case 25-10361-T Document 77 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/29/26 Page 2 of 6

3
in the principal sum of $238,500.00, with interest accruing at a rate of 6.50% on the unpaid
balance. 13 The loan maturity date was originally August 1, 2023, and later extended by agreement
to August 1, 2028. The Plan as proposed would span sixty months and thus would not conclude
until approximately March 2030. Debtors’ failure to pay the Bank’s claim in full by the maturity
date of August 1, 2028, would violate §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5). The Trustee posits that, for
the Plan to comply with §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5)(B), Debtors would be required to make
monthly payments in excess of $4,000.00 for the full term of the Plan. 14
At the Hearing, only Debtors and the Trustee offered oral arguments, as the Bank did not
appear. Debtors asserted that, pursuant to § 1325(a)(5)(B), the Court could confirm the Plan. In
response, the Trustee argued that, because the Bank’s claim is secured by a security interest in real
property that is Debtors’ principal residence, the Plan violates the “anti-modification” provision
of § 1322(b)(2) and cannot be confirmed.
Discussion
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides debtors with an opportunity to retain personal
property under a proposed plan while repaying debts over a three- to five-year period. 15 To benefit
from said opportunity, a debtor must propose and obtain a court-approved plan and make all
payments pursuant to the plan to earn “the right to a discharge and ‘fresh start’ free from most
13 Id.
14 ECF No. 76 at 3.
15 See In re Pino, 657 B.R. 264, 269 (10th Cir. BAP 2024) (citations omitted); In re
Melendez, 597 B.R. 647, 649 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2019) (citing Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S.
496 (2015)).
Case 25-10361-T Document 77 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/29/26 Page 3 of 6

4
prior financial burdens.” 16 To receive court approval, “a proposed Chapter 13 plan must contain
all provisions required by § 1322, and meet all requirements of § 1325(a).” 17
Relevant here is § 1322(b)(2), commonly referred to as the “anti-modification” provision.
Section 1322(b)(2) states that, subject to subsections (a) and (c), a confirmation plan may “modify
the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in
real property that is the debtor’s principal residence . . . .” 18 Its primary purpose “is to encourage
the flow of capital into the home lending market[]” and is therefore “meant to protect home
mortgage lenders rather than home owners.” 19 In that spirit, “[t]he Supreme Court has interpreted
this provision to exclude mortgages against a debtor’s principal residence from the general rule
permitting modification of secured claims in Chapter 13 proceedings.” 20
There is, however, a narrow exception to the anti-modification provision of § 1322(b)(2).
Pursuant to § 1322(c)(2), a debtor may modify “mortgages on which the last payment on the
original payment schedule is due before the date on which the final payment under the chapter 13
plan is due by proposing in the plan to pay the mortgage creditor in full over the course of the
bankruptcy.” 21 A common example is “a mortgage debt [which] includes a ‘balloon’ payment that
16 In re Melendez, 597 B.R. at 649. See In re Plese, 661 B.R. 143, 145 (Bankr. D. Colo.
2024) (Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505, 508 (2010)).
17 In re Liehr, 439 B.R. 179, 183 (10th Cir. BAP 2010). See In re Kofford, No. 12-29134,
2012 WL 6042861, at *3 (Bankr. D. Utah Dec. 4, 2012).
18 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) (emphasis added).
19 Huriega v. Nationstar Mortg. (In re Huriega), No. 13-05058, 2015 WL 4130866, at *4
(Bankr. W.D. Tex. June 1, 2015) (citation omitted).
20 In re Paschen, 296 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank,
508 U.S. 324, 331-32 (1993)).
21 In re Sanders, 521 B.R. 739, 744-45 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014) (citing In re Brown, 428 B.R.
672, 675 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2010)). See Hurlburt v. Black, 925 F.3d 154, 165 (4th Cir. 2019) (“All
that Section 1322(c)(2) does is exempt a narrow class of homestead mortgages—those mortgages
for which the final payment is due prior to a debtor’s last payment on a repayment plan—from
Section 1322(b)(2)’s reach.”).
Case 25-10361-T Document 77 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/29/26 Page 4 of 6

5
becomes due during the term of the plan[.]” 22 However, modifications under § 1322(c)(2) must
nevertheless comply with the requirements of § 1325(a)(5). 23
Section 1325(a)(5) outlines the manner in which “allowed secured claims” 24 may be
modified. 25 A court can confirm a plan’s proposed treatment of an allowed secured claim if one of
three conditions is met: (1) “[t]he secured creditor accepts the plan”; (2) “the debtor surrenders the
property securing the claim to the creditor”; or (3) “the debtor invokes the so-called ‘cram down’
power.” 26 Under the third option, which Debtors attempt to rely on here, “the debtor is permitted
to keep the property over the objection of the creditor; the creditor retains the lien securing the
claim, . . . and the debtor is required to provide the creditor with payments, over the life of the
plan, that will total the present value of the allowed secured claim . . . .” 27
The Bank’s claim here is fully secured by a security interest in Debtors’ principal residence,
the value of which exceeds the amount of the Claim. Thus, the anti-modification provision
prohibits Debtors from modifying the Claim. But, because the Claim is based on a short-term home
22 White v. Newrez LLC (In re White), 641 B.R. 717, 725 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2022) (quoting
Adam M. Goodman, Paul W. Bonapfel, W. Homer Drake Jr., Chapter 13 Practice and Procedure
§ 5:41(2022)). See In re Sanders, 521 B.R. at 744 (“[Section 1322(c)(2)] has been interpreted to
apply to both mortgages that mature post-petition and mortgages that matured or ballooned prior
to the petition date.”); In re Collier-Abbott, 616 B.R. 117, 122 (Bankr. E.D. Cali. 2020) (citing 8
Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 1322.17 (16th ed.)).
23 See, e.g., Mission Hen LLC v. Lee (In re Lee), No. CC-22-1250, 2023 WL 7489928 (9th
Cir. BAP Nov. 13, 2023); In re Hubbell, 496 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013); Geller v. Grijalva
(In re Grijalva), No. 4:11-25386, 2012 WL 1110291 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2012). See also, e.g.,
In re Godwyn, 651 B.R. 669 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2023).
24 “The phrase ‘allowed secured claim[s]’ is a reference to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a), which has
been interpreted as providing that ‘a claim is secured only to the extent of the value of the property
on which the lien is fixed; the remainder of that claim is considered unsecured.” In re Paschen,
296 F.3d at 1206 (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 238-39 (1989)).
25 In re Paschen, 296 F.3d at 1205-06.
26 Hurlburt, 925 F.3d at 159 (quoting Assocs. Com. Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 956-57
(1997)).
27 Id. (quoting Rash, 520 U.S. at 957).
Case 25-10361-T Document 77 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/29/26 Page 5 of 6

6
mortgage—one in which the last contractual payment is due August 1, 2028, and thus within the
life of the plan—the narrow exception of § 1322(c)(2) is applicable.
Nonetheless, Debtors have not shown that the Plan complies with the requirements of
§ 1325(a)(5). The Bank has not accepted the Plan pursuant to § 1325(a)(5)(A) and the Bristow
Property has not been 	surrendered to the Bank pursuant to (a)(5)(C). Compliance with
§ 1325(a)(5)(B) would require Debtors to pay the Claim in full, with interest at a rate of 6.50%,
within the life of the Plan. The terms of the Plan provide monthly payments of $2,219.84, plus
payments of $400.00 per month for a period of twenty-four months, then $481.26 per month for
an additional thirty-six months, for a total amount of approximately $160,115.76. Thus, the Plan
does not satisfy the requirement to pay the Bank’s claim of $207,805.19 in full. As the Trustee
asserts in his amended objection, to pay the Claim in full over the life of the Plan in accordance
with § 1325(a)(5), the monthly payments to the Bank would need to be in excess of $4,000.00 per
month. As such, the Plan does not satisfy the requirements of § 1325(a)(5). Therefore, the Court
cannot confirm Debtors’ Fifth Amended Plan.
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that confirmation of Debtors’ Fifth Amended
Chapter 13 Plan, at ECF No. 63, is DENIED. This ruling is without prejudice to Debtors seeking
to modify the Plan consistent with the holdings of this Order, within thirty days of the entry of the
Order. If no modifications are made, the case will be dismissed.
DATED this 29th day of July, 2026.
Case 25-10361-T Document 77 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/29/26 Page 6 of 6