Charles Muszynski v. Roberto Roman Valentin, 667 B.R. 183

Charles Muszynski (the Debtor) filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the Eastern District of Texas, naming various creditors.
Muszynski sought a 30-day waiver of the required pre-filing credit counseling due to being unable to pay the counseling fee before filing.
The Texas Bankruptcy Court denied his extension request, finding he hadn't met the statutory requirements for a waiver.
The case venue was transferred to the District of Puerto Rico after questions arose about Muszynski’s property and residence.
The Puerto Rico Bankruptcy Court dismissed the case for failure to meet the credit counseling requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1), finding no valid exception applied.
Muszynski appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, arguing the counseling requirement should have been waived and that he completed counseling shortly after filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the debtor’s Chapter 7 case properly dismissed for failure to comply with § 109(h)(1) pre-petition credit counseling?	Muszynski argued he obtained counseling two days after filing and parties waived/should excuse the requirement.	Creditors argued post-filing completion was untimely, no statutory waiver applied, and courts can't "waive" the requirement.	Yes, dismissal affirmed; statutory requirement not met, and no valid waiver or exception applied.
Did the Texas Bankruptcy Court or creditors waive the credit counseling requirement?	Muszynski argued Texas court and creditors implicitly or explicitly waived it.	Creditors denied waiver; Texas court expressly denied waiver and creditors raised noncompliance in their motions.	No waiver; neither court nor creditors waived requirement.
Is overseas residence a valid basis to excuse compliance with § 109(h)(1)?	Muszynski argued counseling was unavailable in Nevis/St. Kitts, so requirement should not apply.	Creditors noted counseling was available online/phone, and Muszynski actually completed it post-filing.	No; counseling was accessible remotely and not shown to be unavailable.
Was Muszynski entitled to an evidentiary hearing before dismissal?	Muszynski argued for a hearing under § 707(a).	Creditors (and court) noted dismissal was under § 109(h), and he had notice/opportunity to oppose dismissal.	No evidentiary hearing required; proper notice given and record was sufficient.

In re Mitrano, 409 B.R. 812 (E.D. Va. 2009) (Section 109(h) credit counseling is a central eligibility prerequisite, not waivable by discretion)
In re Taal, 504 B.R. 682 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014) (explains exceptions and deferments under § 109(h))
In re Fiorillo, 455 B.R. 297 (D. Mass. 2011) (noting majority rule requiring dismissal if debtor doesn’t comply with § 109(h))
In re Stinnie, 555 B.R. 530 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2016) (section 109(h) not freely waivable except for specific statutory situations)
In re Crawford, 420 B.R. 833 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2009) (majority view is that dismissal is mandatory for noncompliance with credit counseling requirement)