§ 109(e), constitutes bad faith that justifies denial of confirmation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Chapter 13 Trustee alleges that Debtors’ second Chapter 13 filing following the discharge of all noncontingent, unsecured debts in their previous Chapter 7 case is a bad faith filing per se because it is an attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional limits of § 109(e). Accordingly, the critical issue the Court must address is whether Debtors’ Chapter 20 filing following the dismissal of a prior Chapter 13 case for exceeding the jurisdictional limits of § 109(e) is a bad faith filing per se. I. PERMISSIBILITY OF CHAPTER 20 FILINGS Generally, Chapter 20 filings are procedurally proper under the Bankruptcy Code. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 87, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In Johnson, the Court held as follows:
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 a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13 holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees  avoidance power holding that complaints against a chapter 7 discharge coupled with objections to a chapter 13 plan of reorganization are sufficient to establish an informal proof of claim