Tanya Dawn Godin

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN RE:
Tanya Dawn Godin,
Debtor(s).
C/A No. 25-03463-JD
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
1 ECF No. 31.
2 ECF No. 33.
3 See Proof of Claim 19-2 filed by Green Aurora Trust on February 27, 2026.
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 12

2
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
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.
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 12

3
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 Hearing12 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
12 ECF No. 25.
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 12

4
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.
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.
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 12

5
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
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 12

6
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
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 12

7
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)).
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 12

8
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
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 12

9
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.
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 12

10
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
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 12

11
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
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 12

12
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.
FILED BY THE COURT
03/19/2026
US Bankruptcy Judge
District of South Carolina
Entered: 03/19/2026
Case 25-03463-jd Doc 47 Filed 03/19/26 Entered 03/19/26 15:45:30 Desc Main
Document Page 12 of 12