In In re Charles A. Grogan and Sarah A. Grogan, No. 11-65409 (Bankr. D. Ore. Sept. 10, 2013), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon confirmed the Debtors’ Third Amended Chapter 11 plan. The Debtors are Christmas tree farmers and their plan proposed to liquidate the majority of their Christmas tree farm and sell six major parcels of land. While the two main secured creditors were deemed to have rejected the plan, the court found the cram down standards of section 1129(b)(2)(A) were applicable. The main issues addressed by the court were (1) that payments from post petition cash collateral should not be credited against the amount of the actual secured claim as of the plan’s effective date, since section 552(b) operates to augment the security interest with such cash proceeds; (2) that the indubitable equivalence requirement would be satisfied by the proceeds of the immediate sale of land being paid to the creditor as it significantly reduced the creditor’s risk, and all proceeds not going to the creditor went back to the farming operations, which preserve and increase the collateral’s value; (3) an election under section 1111(b) made a mere 8 minutes before the disclosure hearing commenced was timely and that since the surrendering of collateral under that same section must be substantially contemporaneously with the plan confirmation, Debtor was required to surrender the collateral within 10 days of the confirmation order; (4) feasibility was satisfied, despite the court’s previous skepticism of the Debtor’s projections, since the new projections were based on 2013 actuals and an improving tree and real estate market (however the court noted that the confirmation order would require strict adherence to the proposed payment schedule both as to timing and amount); (5) good faith was satisfied by Debtors responsiveness to the court’s concerns over previous versions plans, by Debtors’ monthly payments being made without default, by Debtors closing one sale at an above appraisal price, and by Debtors conscientiously filing their monthly operating reports; and (6) the Debtors’ request for a discharge at the plan confirmation stage instead of upon completion of plan payments was denied for failure to prove why early discharge was necessary or appropriate.