1328f.org

1. What Section 1328(f) Provides

Section 1328(f) establishes two time-based bars on Chapter 13 discharges, measured from filing date to filing date:

The bar is absolute: if the current case was filed within the bar window, the debtor is ineligible for a discharge regardless of how faithfully they complete their Chapter 13 plan. A debtor who makes every plan payment for five years and satisfies all plan obligations will not receive a discharge if the filing fell within the 1328(f) window.

The provision interacts with several related statutes:

• Section 727(a)(8): Bars Chapter 7 discharges if the debtor received a prior Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 discharge within 8 years.
• Section 727(a)(9): Bars Chapter 7 discharges if the debtor received a prior Chapter 12 or Chapter 13 discharge within 6 years (with exceptions).
• Section 109(g): Bars filing entirely (not just discharge) within 180 days of certain prior dismissals.

Together, these provisions create a matrix of time-based restrictions on repeat bankruptcy filings and discharges. Section 1328(f) is unique in that it permits the debtor to file and proceed through the entire Chapter 13 process - the bar only prevents the discharge at the end.

2. The Repeat-Filer Population

Repeat filing is not rare. A substantial portion of consumer bankruptcy debtors have filed at least one prior case.

Repeat filing occurs for several reasons, not all of which constitute abuse:

• Prior dismissal without discharge. A debtor whose first Chapter 13 was dismissed (due to job loss, medical emergency, or other disruption) may refile when circumstances improve. This debtor has no prior discharge, so 1328(f) does not apply - but the debtor still appears as a "repeat filer" in filing data.
• Chapter 7 followed by Chapter 13. A debtor who received a Chapter 7 discharge and later files Chapter 13 (a "Chapter 20" case) may be using the second filing legitimately - for example, to cure a mortgage arrearage that survived the Chapter 7 discharge. If the Chapter 13 is filed more than 4 years after the Chapter 7 filing, 1328(f) does not bar discharge.
• Serial filing for stay protection. Some debtors file successive cases primarily to invoke the automatic stay (11 U.S.C. § 362) and delay foreclosure or repossession, with no intention of completing a plan. This is the pattern 1328(f) was designed to address.
• Changed circumstances. Debtors who completed a prior Chapter 13 plan may face new financial distress years later due to events unrelated to their prior bankruptcy - job loss, divorce, medical bills, or economic downturn. If outside the bar window, a new filing is entirely appropriate.

3. The Enforcement Gap

Section 1328(f) creates the bar. It does not create a mechanism for enforcing the bar. No provision of BAPCPA requires courts, trustees, or the U.S. Trustee to screen cases for 1328(f) eligibility at any point in the case.

The enforcement burden falls on several potential actors, none of whom are systematically required to perform it:

4. Question 9: The Self-Disclosure Mechanism

Official Form 101 (Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy) includes Question 9, which asks: "Within 8 years before you filed this bankruptcy case, did you file another bankruptcy case?" The debtor is required to disclose the case number, district, date filed, and chapter.

Question 9 is the primary mechanism by which prior filings become visible in the current case. It has significant limitations:

• Self-reporting. The debtor (or debtor's attorney) provides the information. Omissions - whether intentional or inadvertent - may not be caught.
• 8-year window. Question 9 asks about filings within 8 years. Prior filings outside this window are not disclosed, even though some 1328(f) calculations may be relevant beyond 8 years depending on the length of the prior case.
• No verification requirement. Neither the court nor the trustee is required to verify the accuracy of Question 9 disclosures against the PACER database or any other source.
• Cross-district blindness. A debtor who filed a prior case in a different federal district may not be identified by local screening tools that only check the local court's records.

5. What Happens to Prior Filers

Prior filers who enter Chapter 13 face worse outcomes than first-time filers. This is consistent across districts, case types, and time periods.

Source: 1328f.org analysis of FJC Integrated Database, cases filed 2006-2022.

The cost of Chapter 13 failure for prior filers is not merely the absence of a discharge. These debtors have typically paid:

• Attorney fees ($2,500-4,000 on average, often collected through the plan)
• Trustee fees (typically 5-10% of plan payments)
• Monthly plan payments for the duration of the case before dismissal
• Credit counseling fees ($30-100)
• Filing fees ($313)

A prior filer who enters Chapter 13, makes 18 months of plan payments at $500/month, and is then dismissed has paid approximately $9,000 in plan payments plus $3,000-4,000 in fees and costs - and received nothing in return. The debts remain. The automatic stay is gone. And the debtor has fewer resources to pursue any alternative.

6. The Concentration Pattern

Prior filers are not randomly distributed across the attorney population. Our data reveals significant concentration.

The practitioner concentration pattern raises questions about intake screening. An attorney who represented a debtor in a prior case has direct knowledge of the prior filing date and discharge status. If the same attorney files the current case within the 1328(f) bar window, the attorney either failed to check eligibility, checked and missed the issue, or knew and filed anyway.

The ethical implications differ by scenario, but the outcome is the same: the debtor enters a Chapter 13 case they cannot complete or from which they cannot receive a discharge. Attorney fee applications in these cases present a distinct issue - the attorney collects fees for representation in a case where the desired outcome (discharge) was legally impossible from the date of filing.

7. District Variation

Enforcement of Section 1328(f) varies dramatically by district, reflecting differences in trustee screening practices, U.S. Trustee oversight, local standing orders, and judicial attention to the issue.

The result is a geographic lottery. A prior filer in a district with an active trustee screening program may have their eligibility flagged at the 341 meeting and the case resolved appropriately. The same filer in a district without systematic screening may proceed through the entire plan period and receive a discharge that violates Section 1328(f) - a void discharge that could be challenged years later.

8. The Void Discharge Problem

A discharge granted in violation of Section 1328(f) raises complex legal questions. Courts are split on whether such a discharge is void ab initio (a legal nullity from the moment entered) or merely voidable (valid until challenged and set aside).

If void, the discharge can be challenged at any time - years or even decades after entry. Creditors who were discharged could resume collection. The debtor's reliance on the discharge offers no protection.

If voidable, the discharge stands unless a party in interest brings a timely motion to revoke it. This is the more debtor-protective reading, but it means that violations of a statutory bar go uncorrected unless someone affirmatively acts.

9. What a Screening System Would Look Like

The technology to screen for 1328(f) violations at the time of filing or discharge already exists. The components needed are:

1. Cross-district filing database. PACER already maintains a national index of bankruptcy filings. A query at the time of filing could identify prior cases across all 94 districts.
2. Discharge date extraction. The FJC Integrated Database records discharge dates for closed cases. A lookup against this database at the time of discharge entry could flag potential violations.
3. Date arithmetic. The 1328(f) calculation requires comparing two filing dates against fixed time windows (2 years or 4 years). This is computationally trivial.
4. Alert mechanism. When a potential violation is identified, the system would alert the clerk, trustee, and/or U.S. Trustee for manual review before the discharge is entered.

We built a proof-of-concept screener that performs this analysis across the entire FJC database. It runs in under 30 seconds on a consumer laptop. The open-source tool is available at 1328f.com and the source code at GitHub.

10. Twenty-Year Scorecard

11. Reform Considerations

• Automated screening. CM/ECF should cross-reference new filings and pending discharges against the national filing index to flag potential 1328(f) violations. This is the single most impactful reform - it converts an unenforced statute into an enforced one.
• Mandatory verification at discharge. Before any Chapter 13 discharge is entered, the clerk or trustee should be required to verify that the filing date falls outside all applicable bar windows. A checkbox on the discharge order would formalize this step.
• Attorney disclosure requirement. Attorneys who represented the debtor in a prior case should be required to disclose the prior case and certify that the current filing is outside all bar windows. This is already arguably required by ethical rules, but a formal requirement in the filing rules would make it enforceable.
• Early notification. If a potential 1328(f) issue is identified at the time of filing, the debtor should be notified immediately - before spending months or years in a plan that cannot result in discharge. Early identification allows the debtor to make an informed decision about whether to proceed (some debtors file Chapter 13 primarily for the automatic stay, knowing discharge is unavailable).
• Fee disgorgement. When an attorney files a case within the 1328(f) bar window without disclosing the issue, courts should consider whether the attorney's fees are subject to disgorgement under Section 329(b). An attorney who collects fees for representation in a case where discharge was legally impossible from the outset has arguably provided unreasonable services.

The Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference is currently considering a related proposal (Suggestion 25-BK-N) to amend Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004 to require automated discharge eligibility verification. This data supports that proposal.

Tools

Check your own eligibility or screen cases using our free, open-source tools:

• 1328(f) Eligibility Checker - instant screening against all discharge bars
• National Dashboard - district-level prior-filer data
• Source Code (GitHub) - full methodology, reproducible analysis

Related Reports

• BAPCPA at 20: What the Data Shows - overview of all major BAPCPA provisions
• The Means Test at 20: Did It Work? - companion analysis
• Mandatory Credit Counseling: Costs vs. Benefits - companion analysis
• How We Screened 4.9 Million Bankruptcy Cases - full methodology
• Prior-Filer Discharge Rates by District - completion data

Support this research