date, granting Debtors’ Lam motions in part, and denying Debtors’ Lato motions in part, as stated herein. 1 . Filing a chapter 7 petition followed by a chapter 13 petition is commonly referred to as a “Chapter 20.” The United States Supreme Court has specifically held that there is no per se prohibition against Chapter 20 filings. Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991). However, the filing of multiple bankruptcies is one indicia of bad faith. In re Huerta, 137 B.R. 356, 367 — 68 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1992) (serial chapter 13s) (citing In re Nash, 765 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir. 1985)). 2 . See infra, sect 577 (10th Cir.1986); Schroeder v. First Union Nat. Bank of Virginia, 182 B.R. 723 (D.Md.1995); Stewart v. Underwood, 146 Ariz. 145, 704 P.2d 275 (1985) (<HOLDING>). 15 . Of course, many debtors (e.g.,
holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that a bail bond surety debt was not an allowable debt in bankruptcy because it is a penalty holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or