growing and dispensing of medical marijuana—it was not a plan “proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law” a confirmation requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). Since the debtors could not confirm a plan without the marijuana income, the debtors could not qualify to be debtors in a chapter 13 case. The court was also concerned because confirming the plan would require the Chapter 13 Trustee to violate federal criminal law to administer the plan payments. The bankruptcy court then granted the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss. The B.A.P. affirmed both the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny the debtors’ motion to convert their ease to chapter 13 and to grant the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 855. See also In re McGinnis, 453 B.R. 770 (Bankr. D. Or. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Even if the Debtor was otherwise of “pure
holding that dismissal of a chapter 13 case vacates a confirmed plan holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan holding that a chapter 13 plan was unconfirmable because it relied on a future change to oregon medical marijuana law and it violated federal law holding that the conversion of a chapter 7 petition to a chapter 13 petition was not final until the plan itself was approved