Whether a bankruptcy court contravenes the Bankruptcy Code

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a bankruptcy court contravenes the Bankruptcy Code by finding that a Chapter 13 case is filed in “bad faith” and immediately orders its dismissal and subsequently orders the discipline of the debtor’s attorney where: 1. it is undisputed that the debtor is “an individual with regular _ income that owes ... debts” less than limits imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 109(e); 2. the debtor is eligible for discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328 without limitation under subsection 1328(f)(1) where the debtor . received a discharge within four years in a Chapter 7 case that was filed seven years prior; 3. the debtor claims an “automatic” homestead exemption for his dwelling, as the debtor still resided in the dwelling owned by a probate trust to which he was a one-third beneficiary, said beneficial interest was ordered to be part of the Chapter 7 estate, and a final order entered in the Chapter 7 case prior to the holding of Law v. Siegel disallowed the debtor’s “automatic” homestead exemption because the Chapter 7 case found that the ; debtor held no legal, equitable, or possessory interest in his dwelling; 4. the debtor’s possessory interest in his dwelling is property of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy estate and therefore protected by the automatic stay; 5. the debtor alleges that the probate trustee and the Chapter 7 ' trustee and their respective attorneys may be creditors in the Chapter 13 case with unliquidated claims; and . 6. the court finds none of the enumerated reasons under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding “that the bankruptcy court’s bad faith finding was not illogical, implausible, or unsupported by the record” when the record unequivocally showed that the debtor remained in possession of, and resided in, his dwelling?