Erin D Davenport, 650 B.R. 861

Debtor filed a Chapter 7 petition on Feb. 17, 2022; §341 meeting was set for Mar. 17, 2022. Official Form 423 (Certificate of Completion of a financial management course) had to be filed within 60 days after the §341 date (deadline May 16, 2022).
Debtor did not file Form 423 by the deadline. The case was closed on May 17, 2022 without a discharge and a final-decree notice stating the reason was mailed to the Debtor and counsel.
The Clerk also mailed a prior reminder about the Form 423 requirement and the 60‑day deadline in April 2022 to both debtor and counsel.
Debtor completed the financial management course and obtained a certificate on May 9, 2023, and filed an ex parte motion the same day to reopen the case solely to file Form 423 and obtain a discharge.
The court applied a four‑factor test (reasonable explanation; timeliness; fault of counsel; creditor prejudice) and found Debtor offered no credible excuse for failing to comply or for the 11‑month delay in seeking reopening; all factors weighed against reopening.
The court denied the motion to reopen and to grant a retroactive extension; the opinion notes the Debtor is not prohibited from filing a new bankruptcy case.

Issue	Debtor's Argument	Court/Opposition Argument	Held
Whether there is "cause" to reopen the closed Chapter 7 case so Debtor can file Official Form 423 and receive a discharge	Debtor says she did not receive the mailed notice of the requirement and prior counsel failed to inform her; she has now completed the course and seeks to reopen only to file Form 423	Record shows multiple notices to debtor and counsel; no affidavit or evidence supporting Debtor’s excuse; 11‑month delay undermines cause; reopening would frustrate statutory purposes	Denied — no cause shown; motion to reopen and retroactive extension denied
Whether alleged counsel error excuses the failure to timely complete the course and file Form 423	Debtor attributes the omission to prior counsel’s failure to notify her	Court finds even if counsel erred, ample direct notice was sent to Debtor; counsel error does not justify long delay absent evidence	Denied — counsel fault not a sufficient excuse given notice and delay

Rosinski v. Rosinski, 759 F.2d 539 (6th Cir. 1985) (decision to reopen a bankruptcy case is committed to the court's discretion)
In re Barrett, 569 B.R. 687 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (applied four‑factor test and denied reopening to file Form 423 after long delay)
In re Odoms, 649 B.R. 11 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2023) (denial of motion to reopen where post‑closing delay in complying with Form 423 requirement)