Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit / Goddard v. Burnett
4th Cir.

Goddard v. Burnett

April 28, 2026 ·25-1303 ·Panel Decision ·Niemeyer · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's rejection of a Chapter thirteen plan that technically complied with the means test but retained luxury vehicles while paying unsecured creditors minimally. The court held that technical compliance with the disposable income requirement does not immunize a debtor from the separate statutory requirement to propose a plan in good faith.

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The court held that a debtor's technical compliance with the disposable income requirement of section one three two five subsection b does not preclude a bankruptcy court from finding that a Chapter thirteen plan was not proposed in good faith under section one three two five subsection a three.
  • Standard: Good faith inquiry under 11 U.S.C. section 1325(a)(3)
  • Vote: Affirmed by a unanimous panel.
  • Practical effect: The decision clarifies that debtors cannot rely solely on the mechanical application of the means test to shield Chapter thirteen plans from good faith challenges. It empowers bankruptcy courts to deny confirmation of plans where debtors manipulate the system to retain luxury assets while minimizing payments to unsecured creditors.

Background

Bobby Eugene Goddard, an above-median income debtor, filed a Chapter thirteen petition proposing a plan to pay off loans on three recently purchased luxury vehicles while paying unsecured creditors less than eight cents on the dollar. The bankruptcy court rejected the plan, finding it was not proposed in good faith because it allowed Goddard to retain luxuries at the expense of creditors despite technical compliance with the means test. The district court affirmed the rejection, and Goddard appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

The court’s reasoning

The court rejected the argument that compliance with the disposable income test immunizes a debtor from good faith scrutiny. It explained that the good faith requirement is a separate, equitable overlay designed to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy process. The court noted that Congress intended the means test to calculate disposable income but did not eliminate the broader inquiry into whether a plan abuses the provisions, purpose, or spirit of the Chapter. The court found that Goddard’s plan, which sought to discharge over seventy-eight thousand dollars of unsecured debt while retaining three luxury vehicles, amounted to an abuse of the Chapter thirteen provisions.

What it means going forward

The decision clarifies that debtors cannot rely solely on the mechanical application of the means test to shield Chapter thirteen plans from good faith challenges. It empowers bankruptcy courts to deny confirmation of plans where debtors manipulate the system to retain luxury assets while minimizing payments to unsecured creditors.

Bankruptcy Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 20, 2026 COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. OMEGA RESTAURANT & BAR, LLC Jul 17, 2026 JOSE ANSELMO CASTRO-CASTRO v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General Jul 17, 2026 Richard Lee Gravely v. Brady Hinchman Jul 16, 2026 Brown v. Meink
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.