Bankruptcy Judge Mark A. Randon of Detroit found several reasons for preventing a chapter 13 debtor from being harmed when counsel make a mistake and saddled his client with a five-year plan when the law only required three.

The debtor was in poor health, economically and physically. He would have been eligible for a three-year plan, but his lawyer inadvertently confirmed a five-year plan. From the debtor’s perspective, there was no reason for a five-year plan, Judge Randon said.

Discovering the mistake less than a year after confirmation, the lawyer moved to modify the plan by shortening the commitment period to three years. The trustee resisted, contending that there were no changed circumstances and that the debtor was bound by the confirmed plan under Section 1327(a).

Judge Randon approved the modification in his Feb. 8 opinion.

In the first place, there was no “cause” for having a five-year plan, which Section 1322(d)(2) requires. Furthermore, the amended plan met all confirmation requirements. Consequently, Judge Randon held that the Bankruptcy Code “does not require debtor to additionally show an unanticipated or substantial change in his financial circumstances.”

Assuming there must be post-confirmation changes to justify modification, Judge Randon pointed to the debtor’s worsening health, which might make him unable to continue working and complete plan payments.

Since the motion for modification was less than a year after confirmation, Judge Randon said he could allow modification under Rule 60(b)(1) on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”