IN RE: Tanya Dawn Godin (2026)

Chapter 13

ORDER REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF PLAN

THIS MATTER came before the Court on March 5, 2026, on the Continued Confirmation Hearing of the Modified Plan filed by Tanya Dawn Godin (“Debtor”) on January 20, 2026,¹ and the Objection thereto filed by Green Aurora Trust (“GAT” or “Creditor”) on February 13, 2026.² The Objection centers on determining the value of solar panels (the “Collateral” or “Solar Panels”) for plan confirmation purposes. Appearances were made by Jason Moss, on behalf of the Debtor; Benjamin Grimsley on behalf of GAT; and the chapter 13 trustee.

JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and the Court may issue a final order.

BACKGROUND

Prior to filing bankruptcy, Debtor entered into a loan agreement with Sunlight Financial, LLC, to finance the purchase of residential solar panels for her home located at 2103 Marley Drive, Columbia, SC.³ Thereafter, Sunlight Financial, LLC sold the loan to Green Aurora Trust.⁴

On September 3, 2025, Debtor filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.⁵ GAT was not listed as a creditor on the mailing matrix attached to the voluntary petition. Debtor later filed schedules and statements,⁶ but GAT was again not shown as a creditor on Schedule D or E/F, nor were the Solar Panels disclosed as Debtor's property on Schedule A/B. When Debtor filed the original Plan on October 1, 2025,  ⁷ GAT was omitted in both treatment and service.

On November 12, 2025, GAT filed Proof of Claim 19-1, effectively adding itself as a notice party in the case.⁸ The Proof of Claim shows a balance owed of $31,630.02, secured entirely by the Solar Panels pursuant to a UCC Financing Statement. On stipulation of the parties, the Court received the Proof of Claim, with its attachments, into evidence. Attached to the Proof of Claim is a document titled “Additional Terms and Conditions,” which includes provisions stating the Solar Panels may be removed either by Debtor, with permission, or by the Creditor upon default.

Debtor thereafter filed the first pre-confirmation Modified Plan on November 26, 2025 (the “First Modified Plan”),⁹ which was served on GAT but did not treat GAT's claim. The First Modified Plan was withdrawn by Debtor.¹⁰ Debtor's next plan (the “Second Modified Plan”) was filed December 4, 2025.¹¹ The Second Modified Plan treated GAT's claim in Section 3.2, valuing the Solar Panels at $1,000.00 and providing a payment of $21.00 or more per month at 9.00% interest. The Second Modified Plan and corresponding Notice of Confirmation Hearing ¹² were properly served on GAT via regular mail on December 4, 2025, at the address provided for notice on Proof of Claim 19-1:

Green Aurora Trust

c/o Launch Servicing, LLC

PO Box 91910

Sioux Falls, SD 57109-1910

The Notice of Confirmation Hearing provided: “Any objection to confirmation of the chapter 13 plan must be filed with the Court․and served on the chapter 13 trustee, the debtor(s), and any attorney for the debtor(s) at least seven days prior to the confirmation hearing․ If no objection is timely filed, the plan may be confirmed on recommendation of the trustee.” (emphasis added). The confirmation hearing was set for January 8, 2026, with objections due seven days prior to the hearing.

Neither GAT nor any other creditor objected to confirmation; however, on request of the chapter 13 trustee, the Court required Debtor to modify the chapter 13 plan to address issues necessary for confirmation. Pursuant to that order, Debtor filed another modified plan (the “Current Modified Plan”), along with the Notice of Confirmation Hearing, which again provided that objections were due at least seven days prior to the confirmation hearing. The Current Modified Plan did not alter the treatment of GAT compared with the Second Modified Plan. The confirmation hearing was set for February 19, 2026, with the objection deadline set, accordingly, for February 12, 2026. The Current Modified Plan and Notice of Confirmation Hearing were served via “regular mail” on the mailing matrix, including on GAT at the notice address provided in Proof of Claim 19-1.¹³

On February 13, 2026, one day after the deadline to object, GAT filed the Objection to Confirmation, asserting that the Modified Plan fails to provide GAT with the present payoff of its secured claim as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii), and therefore confirmation should be denied.

The Confirmation Hearing scheduled for February 19, 2026, was continued to March 5, 2026, on the Motion of GAT.¹⁴ The parties filed a Joint Statement of Dispute that references items in the Court's records.¹⁵ At the hearing, Debtor testified on her own behalf as a lay witness regarding the value of the Solar Panels. Jeanna Farley testified on behalf of the Debtor as an expert in real estate valuations.¹⁶ No other witnesses were called. After consideration of the evidence, the Court finds and determines as follows.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. GAT's Objection is Untimely.

GAT's objection to confirmation is overruled as untimely pursuant to the local form Notice of Confirmation Hearing, required by SC LBR 3015-2, which, as detailed above, sets the deadline for objections to confirmation at seven days prior to the scheduled confirmation hearing. Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(5) requires twenty-one (21) days’ written notice to all creditors of the time to accept or reject a proposed modification of a plan. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a)(5). Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(9) requires twenty-one (21) days’ notice of the time fixed for filing objections to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a)(9). Bankruptcy Rule 2002(b)(3) requires 28 days’ notice of the hearing to consider confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(b)(3). The Current Modified Plan was filed January 20, 2026, and the confirmation hearing was set for February 19, 2026 – allowing thirty days between the date of filing and the date of the hearing. The deadline to object prescribed by the local form Notice of Confirmation Hearing – February 12, 2026 – was twenty-three days after the modified Plan was filed and served. The local form Notice is consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9029(a)(1)(A). GAT has not alleged that they did not receive notice of the Second Modified Plan, the Current Modified Plan, or their corresponding Notices of Confirmation Hearing. GAT's objection was filed after the deadline and therefore is overruled as untimely.

II. GAT has Accepted the Plan under § 1325(a)(5)(A).

“A Chapter 13 plan may be confirmed if one of the following occurs with regard to secured claims provided for by the plan: (1) the holder of the secured claim accepts the plan, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(A); (2) a non-accepting holder of the secured claim retains its lien until the earlier payment of the underlying debt or the debtor's discharge, id. § 1325(a)(5)(B); or (3) the debtor surrenders the property securing the claim to the holder, id., § 1325(a)(5)(C).” In re Powell, 640 B.R. 882, 883 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2022).

The first path to confirmation, acceptance, is obtained simply through the secured creditor's failure to object. In re Williams, 663 B.R. 296, 289-99 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2024) (quoting In re Powell, 640 B.R. 882, 883 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2022)); see also In re Crawford, 532 B.R. 645, 650 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2015) (citing cases). GAT's objection was untimely. Therefore, GAT has accepted the Plan under § 1325(a)(5)(A).

Additionally, pursuant to § 1323(c), acceptance carries forward to a pre-confirmation modified plan that does not change the creditor's rights. That statute provides that “[a]ny holder of a secured claim that has accepted or rejected the plan is deemed to have accepted or rejected, as the case may be, the plan as modified, unless the modification provides for a change in the rights of such holder from what such rights were under the plan before modification.” 11 U.S.C. § 1323(c).

The case docket details the service and hearing timeline—the Second Modified Plan and Notice were served on December 4, 2025, using the notice address on Proof of Claim 19-1. GAT failed to timely object to the Second Modified Plan and therefore it was accepted under § 1325(a)(5)(A). In re Williams, 663 B.R. at 298-99. The treatment of GAT's claim was unchanged from the Second Modified Plan to the Current Modified Plan; therefore, under § 1323(c), GAT is deemed to have accepted both.

GAT's assertion in the Joint Statement of Dispute and at the hearing that Debtor's Plan fails to provide Creditor with the present payoff as required by § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) is therefore inapplicable. Section 1325(a)(5)(B) is the “cram down” path to confirmation. “Under the cram down option, ․ ‘ 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․’ ”. Hurlburt v. Black, 925 F.3d. 154, 159 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Assocs. Comm. Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 957 (1997) (emphasis added). Section 506 is then invoked to determine the amount of the allowed secured claim. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B). Where the Plan is accepted under § 1325(a)(5)(A), the requirements of § 1325(a)(5)(B) and the ensuing § 506 valuation analysis are not necessary. Put differently,

Under § 1325(a)(5) the debtor's first way of dealing with a secured claim is to obtain the creditor's consent to the proposed treatment. If the creditor accepts the plan, the manner in which the creditor is treated under the plan may not be the basis of an objection to confirmation․

Absent consent of the secured creditor, the second method of dealing with secured claims is to provide that the creditor shall retain the lien, and that the value of payments or property to be distributed under the plan is not less than the allowed amount of the secured claim. This option is commonly referred to as a “cramdown plan․.” § 13:39. Treatment of secured claims, 3 Bankruptcy Law Manual § 13:39 (5th ed.) (citing 11 U.S.C § 1325(a)(5)(A)).

GAT has accepted the Current Modified Plan and, as such, there is no need to consider whether it proposes to pay GAT the present value of its allowed secured claim for the purposes of § 1325(a)(5).

III. The Plan Otherwise Complies with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)

However, the Court must also consider the other requirements for confirmation under § 1325(a). “․[T]his court has the right to independently determine that a debtor's proposed chapter 13 plan meets all statutory requirements based upon the evidence presented at confirmation” whether an objection exists or not. Williams, 663 B.R. at 299 (quoting In re White, 618 B.R. 748, 752 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2020)) (internal citations omitted). “[A] bankruptcy court has an independent duty to ensure that a chapter 13 plan meets the statutory requirements for confirmation.” In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731, 737 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2010) (citing United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010)) (“Section 1325(a) ․ requires bankruptcy courts to address and correct a defect in a debtor's proposed plan even if no creditor raises the issue.”) (emphasis in original); In re Madera, 445 B.R. 509, 513 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2011)).

The Court has reviewed the Plan and finds that all requirements of § 1325(a) are met. Nonetheless, the Court is aware of GAT's concern that the Plan does not propose to pay adequate value on its Claim. Even when no timely objection has been filed, a Plan may fail to meet confirmation requirements under the “good faith” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3), which requires that “the plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law.” See, e.g., In re Williams, 663 B.R. at 300 (finding that Debtor's failure to attend the confirmation hearing and provide the basis for the proposed value of collateral prevented the Court from determining that the plan was proposed in good faith pursuant to § 1325(a)(3)).

The Court therefore considers the nature and amount of GAT's secured claim in the context of whether the Plan was filed in good faith under § 1325(a)(3).

A. The Solar Panels are personal property.

The Solar Panels are affixed to the house, and as such, the Court must consider whether they are fixtures or personal property. “ ‘Fixtures’ means goods that have become so related to particular real property that an interest in them arises under real property law.” S.C. Code Ann. § 36-9-102(41) (2003 & Supp. 2019). “A fixture is generally defined as an article which was a chattel, but by being physically annexed to the realty by one having an interest in the soil becomes a part and parcel of it.” Carson v. Living Word Outreach Ministries, Inc., 315 S.C. 64, 70, 431 S.E.2d 615, 618 (Ct. App. 1993). The determination of whether an item has become a fixture is made under state law.

South Carolina courts have considered the “(1) mode of attachment, (2) character of the structure or article, (3) the intent of the parties making the annexation, and (4) the relationship of the parties” in determining whether an object is a fixture to real property. ABB, Inc. v. Integrated Recycling Group of SC, LLC, 432 S.C. 545, 552, 854 S.E.2d 171, 175 (Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Carjow, LLC v. Simmons, 349 S.C. 514, 519, 563 S.E.2d 359, 362 (Ct. App. 2002)) (internal citations omitted). “Mere affixation does not automatically render property a fixture.” Id.

The mode of attachment, character of the property, and relationship of the parties are not disputed, so the analysis hinges on the intent of the parties. Carjow, 349 S.C. at 520. Debtor testified that the Solar Panels were drilled into her roof, and that, if removed, some damage from the installation would be expected. GAT presented no evidence other than asking the Court to take judicial notice of the documents filed in the case. The Loan Agreement attached to GAT's Proof of Claim, which was received into evidence, provides that upon any event of default, the borrower “grant[s] us[,] ․ our agents, employees and contractors a non-exclusive right to access the Residence, as necessary or convenient to enforce our rights under this Note, including to access, disable, and/or remove the System․” (emphasis added). While physical annexation is present, the commercial context and expressed intent control here: the explicit removal rights in the loan documents and the personal-property financing structure are dispositive on this record. Accordingly, the Court finds the Solar Panels are personal property.

B. Value of the Solar Panels.

Having determined that the Solar Panels are personal property, the Court now considers their value. Valuation is not an exact science. In re Gillis, 2024 WL 4434551, at *5 (Bankr. D.S.C. Oct. 4, 2024) (quoting In re Hayes, 657 B.R. 519, 528 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2024) (internal citations omitted). The Proof of Claim provides that the Note was signed October 11, 2023. The Court will presume that the Solar Panels were installed sometime shortly thereafter and have therefore been in use for approximately two years. The amount financed was $32,810.00, but the Proof of Claim indicates that the Debtor contracted for both equipment and installation. The Court was presented with no information as to how much of the total amount financed was attributable to the equipment, and how much was attributable to the installation.

The Court is limited by the evidence provided, which is only Debtor's lay testimony as to value. Debtor provided two data points: (a) research indicating a replacement cost of $50-$75 per panel for her six panels and (b) a total system value of $800.00. The Plan values the Collateral at $1,000.00. Debtor testified that the value of the total system is greater than the replacement cost for all six panels. Even so, the Court credits this foundation as a rationally based perception of value of property she owns.

The Court further recognizes that in addition to the panels, the system, pursuant to the UCC-1 attached to the Proof of Claim, includes “․electrical inverters, microinverters or power optimizers, cables and wires, support brackets, and related equipment,” which supports selecting a value above the low-end panel-only estimate. The Court has not been provided with any competing valuation from GAT. Based on Debtor's testimony and the absence of contrary proof, the Court finds a total conservative replacement value of $1,000.00 for the entire Collateral, inclusive of all system components, sufficient to support a finding that the Current Modified Plan is proposed in good faith under § 1325(a)(3).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Creditor is deemed to have accepted the Plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(A) and the Plan otherwise complies with the requirements of confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a), including the requirement that the Plan be filed in good faith pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). Assuming there are no other issues to be resolved, the Trustee shall file a recommendation regarding Debtor's Plan filed January 20, 2026, within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   ECF No. 31.

2.   ECF No. 33.

3.   See Proof of Claim 19-2 filed by Green Aurora Trust on February 27, 2026.

4.   See Proof of Claim 19-2.

5.   ECF No. 1.

6.   ECF No. 12.

7.   ECF No. 14.

8.   See SC LBR 2002-1(a).

9.   ECF No. 21.

10.   ECF No. 23.

11.   ECF No. 24.

12.   ECF No. 25.

13.   As of the date of service of the Current Modified Plan, the address for notices pursuant to Proof of Claim 19-1 filed by GAT on November 12, 2025, was “Green Aurora Trust, c/o Launch Servicing, LLC, PO Box 91910, Sioux Falls, SD 57109-1910”. Later, on February 27, 2026, GAT filed Proof of Claim 19-2, amending Proof of Claim 19-1. Proof of Claim 19-2 shows the address for notice as “Green Aurora Trust, c/o Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis Co., L.P.A., 5990 West Creek Rd, Suite 200, Independence, OH 44131”. The Court also notes that Proof of Claim 21-1 was filed on February 20, 2026, by Turnstile Capital Management, LLC, which appears to relate to the same underlying claim, but Proof of Claim 21-1 was withdrawn on February 25, 2026 (ECF No. 40).

14.   ECF Nos. 35 and 36.

15.   ECF No. 43.

16.   While the Court qualified Farley as an expert on real estate valuations, she was not qualified as an expert on solar panel valuations. The testimony Farley provided was therefore given no weight in this order.