Adrian Jevon Shuman

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
www.flmb.uscourts.gov
In re: 	Case No. 3:24-bk-793-JAB
ADRIAN JEVON SHUMAN,
Chapter 13
Debtor.
_____ /
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case came before the Court on Debtor’s Objection
to Claim 2 of State National Companies (the “Objection”)1 and State National
Companies’ Response to the Objection (the “Response”).2 On November 19, 2025,
the Court conducted a hearing on the Objection (the “Hearing”) and directed the
parties to file post-hearing memoranda. Upon the applicable facts and relevant law,
1 Doc. 48.
2 Doc. 51.
Dated: February 18, 2026
ORDERED.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 13

2
the Court finds it appropriate to sustain the Objection. The Court makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.3
Findings of Fact
On February 23, 2022, Vystar Credit Union (“Vystar”) loaned Adrian Jevon
Shuman (“Shuman”) $40,781.80 to finance the purchase of a 2016 Cadillac CT6 (the
“Vehicle”) in exchange for which Vystar was granted a security interest in the Vehicle.
Previously, on November 16, 2020, Vystar had entered into a Vendors Single Interest
Blanket Policy (the “Insurance Policy”) with State National Companies (“SNC”).4
The Insurance Policy provided coverage to Vystar of up to $100,000 for each financed
private passenger automobile. In August 2023, Shuman stopped making payments to
Vystar, and in turn, Vystar filed a claim with SNC as to the Insurance Policy. In
December 2023, SNC paid Vystar $29,050 pursuant to the Insurance Policy. In
consideration thereof, Vystar assigned its lien rights in the Vehicle to SNC.
On March 20, 2024 (“the Petition Date”), Shuman filed this Chapter 13
Bankruptcy Case.5 On March 28, 2024, SNC filed a secured proof of claim (“Claim
2”) for $27,075 based on the assignment of lien from Vystar to SNC. On April 3, 2024,
3 See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052.
4 Single interest insurance protects the interests of a lender by covering damage or loss to a
loan’s underlying asset. Blanket coverage, which offers a lender coverage for its entire
consumer loan portfolio, reduces the lender’s administrative costs because it eliminates the
necessity of the lender having to keep track of individual policies. Skip account protection
reimburses the lender for the expense of tracking down a borrower who has defaulted. See
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/single-interest-insurance.asp.
5 Doc. 1.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 13

3
Shuman objected to Claim 2, asserting that it should be disallowed because no
supporting documents were attached to SNC’s proof of claim (the “SNC Claim
Objection”).6 The SNC Claim Objection contained a bolded negative notice legend
that clearly advised interested parties, including SNC, to respond within thirty days,
failing which the Court could grant the relief requested without further notice or
hearing.7 SNC did not file a response to the SNC Claim Objection, and, on May 8,
2024, the Court entered an order sustaining the objection and disallowing SNC’s claim
(“Order Disallowing Claim 2”).8 SNC did not seek reconsideration of the Order
Disallowing Claim 2. The Court also notes that SNC was clearly aware of this
bankruptcy case as of at least March 28, 2024 and has never asserted in any filing with
the Court that it did not receive notice of any activity in this Bankruptcy Case.
On April 17 2024, Vystar filed an unsecured proof of claim (“Claim 9”) for
$11,317.38 and attached documentation related to its financing of the Vehicle. On
June 10, 2024, Shuman filed an objection to Claim 9, seeking to have it treated as a
secured claim.9 By Order dated July 15, 2024, the Court sustained Shuman’s Objection
to Claim 9, allowing it as a secured claim.10 Shuman, by seeking to have Vystar treated
as secured, rather than unsecured, did Vystar, and in turn SNC, a big favor and
6 Doc. 12. Claim 2 did in fact include supporting documentation evidencing SNC’s lien rights
in the Vehicle.
7 The SNC Claim Objection was served upon the individual who filed Claim 2 on behalf of
SNC at the address provided in Claim 2.
8 Doc. 16. The Order Disallowing Claim 2 was served upon the individual who filed Claim 2
at the address provided in Claim 2.
9 Doc. 25.
10 Doc. 27.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 13

4
provided for payment in full of the $11,317.38 under Claim 9. Had Shuman not taken
such action, Vystar would have been treated as an unsecured creditor receiving
approximately $2,100.
Prior to the confirmation hearing on October 1, 2024, Shuman filed an
Amended Chapter 13 Plan11 and a Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan12 (collectively,
the “Amended Plans”).13 Neither of the Amended Plans made mention of SNC.
Despite SNC’s claim having been disallowed and Shuman’s Second Amended
Chapter 13 Plan providing for no payments to SNC, SNC did not file an objection to
the Plan and did not appear at the confirmation hearing.
On October 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order Confirming Plan (“the
Confirmation Order”).14 The Confirmation Order indicated that Claim 2 was filed as
a secured claim in the amount of $27,075 but had been disallowed and would receive
no payment in the Chapter 13 plan.15 The Confirmation Order treated Claim 9 as a
secured claim for $11,317.48 and provided for payments to Vystar in an amount
totaling $12,506.16 ($11,317.38 plus interest)16 over the life of the plan.17 SNC, again
11 Doc. 15.
12 Doc. 26.
13 Both Plans were served upon State National at the address provided in Claim 2.
14 Doc. 33. The Confirmation Order was served upon SNC at the address provided in Claim
2.
15 Id., Ex. A.
16 The Confirmation Order provided for payments to Vystar of $182.46 for months 1-12 of the
Plan and $214.93 for months 13-60 of the Plan.
17 Id., Ex. A.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 13

5
having notice of activity in this Bankruptcy Case for approximately seven months, did
not seek reconsideration of the Confirmation Order.
In January 2025, Shuman filed a Modified Chapter 13 Plan18 and a Motion to
Modify Confirmed Chapter 13 Plan (the “Motion to Modify”),19 asserting that SNC
had provided documentation that it, instead of Vystar, had a security interest in the
Vehicle and that such documentation was attached to Claim 2. The Modified Plan
proposed to pay $182.26 to Vystar for months 1-10 of the plan, $182.26 to SNC for
months 11 and 12 of the Plan, and $214.93 to SNC for months 13-60 of the Plan. The
Trustee objected to the Motion to Modify, asserting that the Modified Plan did not
properly provide for the “claims of and Orders related to State National Companies
and Vystar Credit Union.”20
On May 21, 2025, the Court conducted a hearing on the Motion to Modify.
SNC did not appear at this hearing. On June 20, 2025, the Court entered an Interim
Order Granting Debtor’s Motion to Modify Confirmed Plan and Scheduling a
Continued Hearing on July 23, 2025 (the “Interim Order”).21 The Interim Order gave
SNC thirty days to file a proof of claim. SNC, however, failed to file a another22 proof
of claim.
18 Doc. 36.
19 Doc. 37.
20 Doc. 38.
21 Doc. 42. The Interim Order was served upon SNC at the address provided in Claim 2.
22 As the Court previously noted, SNC’s proof of claim 2 was disallowed by order dated May
8, 2024 based upon SNC’s failure to respond to the SNC Claim Objection.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 13

6
On July 23, 2025, the Court conducted another hearing on the Motion to
Modify. SNC’s attorney did not appear at this hearing. Shuman’s attorney appeared
and noted the following: 1) Shuman previously objected to Claim 2 because he did not
know what Claim 2 represented; and 2) Shuman’s attorney followed up two or three
times with SNC’s attorney regarding filing a proof of claim (as directed by the Court)
and was told a proof of claim would be filed. Shuman’s attorney also indicated that
Vystar refused to accept money from the Trustee because it no longer held a lien on
the Vehicle and the Trustee did not know to whom to make the payment based upon
the claims filed in the case. The Court’s understanding at the hearing was that the
modification would change the recipient for purposes of directing to whom payment
should be made and where payment should be sent, but would not change the amount of
the payment, which was defined in the October 23, 2024 Confirmation Order almost
nine months prior.23 The Court granted the Motion to Modify and directed that SNC
be substituted in the place of Vystar as the rightful lien holder and treated as the secured
creditor. The Court directed the parties to work together to prepare a proposed order.
For reasons which are not clear to the Court, the Chapter 13 Trustee did not
submit an order memorializing the Court’s ruling until almost two months later on
September 19, 2025. The Court entered the Order Granting Debtor’s Motion to
23 In response to the Court’s question to Shuman’s counsel “State National is who you assert
and believe is the rightful lien holder on the vehicle and should be getting the payments that
are currently set up to be made to Vystar under the plan,” Shuman’s counsel responded
“correct.”
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 13

7
Modify Confirmed Chapter 13 Plan (the “Order Modifying Plan”) on September 22,
2025.24 The Order Modifying Plan provided:
Proof of Claim 2 of [SNC] shall be an allowed claim and be deemed and
treated as a secured claim and will receive payments of $182.46 for
months 1-12 and $214.93 for months 13-60 on the 2016 Cadillac CT6 per
the originally filed proof of claim dated March 28, 2024.25 Debtor(s) shall
have 14 days from the date of this Order to file an objection to Claim(s)
# 2 of [SNC] or in the alternative to obtain an amended claim reflecting
those amounts being paid in the plan confirmed by this Order. If
Debtor(s) fail to object to the claim or obtain an amended claim within
14 days of the date of this Order, then the claim shall be allowed as filed
and the plan amended to provide for payment in full.26
The Order Modifying Plan failed to accurately reflect the Court’s ruling from
the July 2025 hearing. The Court simply directed that the plan be modified to provide
for monthly plan payments to SNC instead of Vystar. The Court’s ruling at the July
2025 hearing did not provide for Claim 2 to be treated as a secured claim in the amount
of SNC’s originally filed proof of claim.
On August 29, 2025, Shuman filed the Objection, stating “[t]he Debtor would
show that the balance of $27,075.00 is excessive based on the amount paid to VyStar
Credit Union. The balance allowed should be $11,317.48.” On October 2, 2025,
almost a year after the entry of the Confirmation Order, SNC filed the Response. By
the Response, SNC contends Shuman is confused about the transaction between SNC
and Vystar and that, because the Vehicle was purchased within 910 days prior to the
24 Doc. 49.
25 The payments in the Plan and Modified Plan totaled $12,506.16, calculated by adding the
$11,317.48 set forth in Claim 9 filed by Vystar, with interest. The payments were not sufficient
to pay the $27,075 set forth in Claim 2 filed by SNC.
26 Id.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 13

8
filing of the bankruptcy case, it must be paid in full as provided in 11 U.S.C. §
1325(a)(9)(the “Hanging Paragraph”).27 The Response was SNC’s first filing in this
Bankruptcy Case since it filed Claim 2 on March 28, 2024.
On December 18, 2025, SNC filed its Post-Trial Brief in Opposition to the
Objection,28 and on December 19, 2025, Shuman filed his Post-Trial Memorandum in
Support of the Objection.29
Conclusions of Law
Shuman argues that SNC is not a purchase money security-interest creditor of
Shuman, and he is therefore not precluded by the Hanging Paragraph from reducing
Claim 	2 	to 	the 	value 	of 	the 	Vehicle. 	Alternatively, 	Shuman 	argues 	that 	the
Confirmation Order and the Order Modifying Plan valued the collateral of Vystar and
SNC at $11,317.48 and that any objection by SNC to Shuman’s valuation of its claim
is precluded by 11 U.S.C. § 1327. SNC argues that the plain meaning of the Hanging
Paragraph requires Shuman to pay the full amount of Claim 2 but did not address
Shuman’s § 1327 argument.
27 The Hanging Paragraph provides:
For purposes of paragraph (5) [of § 1325(a)], section 506 shall not apply to a
claim described in that paragraph if the creditor has a purchase money security
interest securing the debt that is the subject of the claim, the debt was incurred
within the 910-day period preceding the date of the filing of the petition, and
the collateral for that debt consists of a motor vehicle (as defined in section
30102 of title 49) acquired for the personal use of the debtor, or if collateral for
that debt consists of any other thing of value, if the debt was incurred during
the 1-year period preceding that filing.
28 Doc. 66.
29 Doc. 67.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 8 of 13

9
Section 1327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “[t]he provisions of a
confirmed plan bind the debtor and each creditor, whether or not the claim of such
creditor is provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has objected to,
has accepted, or has rejected the plan.”30 “This policy is so strong that a ‘creditor may
not ignore the confirmation process … A creditor who disregards a procedurally
proper and plain notice that its interests are in jeopardy does so at its own risk.’”31 The
binding effect of § 1327 applies to all issues that were or could have been litigated by
the parties.32 Among these issues is the amount of a secured claim, and the value of a
secured claim is fixed as of the effective date of the plan.33
The Supreme Court has ruled that even a confirmed Chapter 13 plan that is
erroneously entered in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code is binding if the affected
creditor had adequate notice but failed to timely object or appeal.34 In Espinosa, the
Debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan that proposed to pay the principal owed on his student
loan debt during the life of the plan, after which the interest would be discharged. In
response to receiving a copy of the chapter 13 plan, the creditor filed a proof of claim
for the total debt owed but did not object to the plan or object to the debtor’s failure to
file an adversary proceeding to discharge the debt. The bankruptcy court confirmed
30 11 U.S.C. § 1327.
31 In re McLemore, 426 B.R. 728, 735 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010) (quoting Factors Funding Co. v.
Fili, 257 B.R. 370, 374 (1st Cir. 2001)).
32 In re Gonzalez, 832 F.2d 1251, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016).
33 In re Meeks, 327 B.R. 856, 859 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1999).
34 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (In re Espinosa), 599 U.S. 260, 275 (2010).
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 9 of 13

10
the plan without the filing of an adversary proceeding or a finding of undue hardship
as required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
The Espinosa Debtor completed the payments as required by the plan, and the
bankruptcy court discharged the interest. Several years later, the creditor filed a motion
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) seeking to set aside the confirmation order as void on the
basis that: 1) the plan’s provision which discharged the interest was inconsistent with
§ 523)(a)(8)’s requirement that a court find undue hardship before discharging a
student loan; and 2) its due process rights were violated since it did not receive
adequate notice of the proposed discharge because the debtor failed to commence an
adversary proceeding.
The bankruptcy court denied the motion, and the district court reversed. The
Ninth Circuit sided with the bankruptcy court, finding that the judgment was not void.
The Supreme Court rejected the creditor’s due process argument, finding that the
creditor’s actual notice of the plan “more than satisfied” its due process rights.35 The
Court found that while the bankruptcy court committed a legal error by confirming
the plan without a finding of undue hardship, the confirmation order was enforceable
and binding because the creditor had notice of the error and failed to object or timely
appeal.36 The Court noted that Rule 60(b)(4) does not provide “a license for litigants
to sleep on their rights….Where, as here, a party is notified of a plan’s contents and
fails to object to confirmation of the plan before the appeal expires, that party has been
35 Id. at 272.
36 Id. at 275.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 10 of 13

11
afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate, and the party’s failure to avail itself of
that opportunity will not justify Rule 60(b)(4) relief.”37
Section 1329 sets forth the limited circumstances under which a plan may be
modified38 and permits only the debtor, the trustee, or an unsecured creditor to seek
modification of a confirmed plan. A secured creditor may not seek modification under
§ 1329. Section 1327 precludes modification of a confirmed plan under § 1329 to
address issues that were or could have been decided at the time the plan was originally
confirmed.39 While a debtor can alter the amount of their payment on a claim to
accelerate or reduce the rate at which a claim is paid, § 1329 does not permit a debtor
to modify the amount of an allowed secured claim.40
SNC’s objection to Shuman’s valuation of its claim is clearly precluded by the
binding effect of the Confirmation Order as mandated by § 1327.41 SNC had numerous
opportunities to protect its rights but failed to do so. First, SNC failed to file a response
37 Id. at 277.
38 Section 1329(a) provides:
(a) At any time after confirmation of the plan but before the completion of
payments under such plan, the plan may be modified, upon request of the
debtor, the trustee, or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim, to--
(1) increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a
particular class provided for by the plan;
(2) extend or reduce the time for such payments;
(3) alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor whose claim
is provided for by the plan to the extent necessary to take account
of any payment of such claim other than under the plan; or
39 In re Storey, 392 B.R. 266, 272 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008).
40 Meeks, 237 B.R. at 856.
41 Had SNC timely acted to preserve its claim rights, it appears SNC would have been entitled
to secured creditor treatment on the $27,075 set forth in Claim 2. That said, the Court, having
found § 1327 applies, need not address that issue here.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 11 of 13

12
to the SNC Claim Objection. Second, SNC failed to seek reconsideration of the Order
Disallowing its claim. Third, SNC failed to object to not being included in the
Amended Plans. Fourth, SNC failed to appear at the October 1, 2024 confirmation
hearing. Finally, SNC failed to timely seek reconsideration of the Confirmation Order.
Like the creditor in Espinosa, SNC essentially slept on its rights during the pendency
of this Bankruptcy Case. SNC was notified of the proposed disallowance of Claim 2,
the disallowance of Claim 2, and its treatment in the Plan but failed to take any action
to protect its interests. Its failure to avail itself of a full and fair opportunity to litigate
does not justify relief from the Confirmation Order by virtue of modification under §
1329.42
Conclusion
The Confirmation Order and the Order Modifying Plan valued the collateral of
Vystar and SNC at $11,317.48, and SNC’s objection to Shuman’s valuation of its claim
is precluded by 11 U.S.C. § 1327. The Court will therefore sustain Shuman’s Objection
to Claim 2 and enter a separate order consistent with these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
42 See In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 381 B.R. 804, 809–10 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008), aff'd
in part, 414 B.R. 764 (M.D. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 639 F.3d 1053 (11th Cir. 2011) “[A]
creditor cannot reasonably expect to sit on its rights throughout the process leading up
to confirmation, then argue that it is entitled to relief post-confirmation, without
consideration to the specified terms of the confirmed plan. Just as the W or L in the
score box at a sporting event determines a team's standing, a creditor's standing and
rights, unless preserved, are determined by the terms of the confirmed plan.”
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 12 of 13

13
Attorney Bryan Mickler is directed to serve a copy of these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on interested parties and to file a proof of service within 3 days of
the entry of the order.
Case 3:24-bk-00793-JAB Doc 72 Filed 02/18/26 Page 13 of 13