contends that Than’s plan should be interpreted as a pot plan because granting Than a discharge under the percentage plan would be unfair. In practice, plans paying less than 100% to the unsecured claimants generally are not proposed for less than 36 months to avoid objection. Appellant contends that its predecessors in interest did not object at plan confirmation because the plan complied with the Code at that time. Nevertheless, the plan expressly provided that the payments might be completed in less than the stated 38 months. The opportunity to object to the percentage plan existed at the time of plan confirmation. Therefore, the Panel does not see this appeal as a "test case” for the legality of percentage plans versus pot plans. But see Witkowski, 16 F.3d at 746 and n. 11 (<HOLDING>). 13 . Some authorities suggest the situation
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody even though the court did not find father had shown a material change other than the 15 year old childs holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the plan based on its legal conclusion that the code anticipates pot plans and disavowing percentage plans as inconsistent with  1325b