569 B.R. 687
Bankr. E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Debtor filed Chapter 7 on March 14, 2008; meeting of creditors set for April 24, 2008. Clerk granted Chapter 7 filing-fee waiver the same day.
- Rule and statute required filing a post‑petition financial management course Certificate within 60 days after the § 341 meeting (deadline June 23, 2008). Debtor did not file the Certificate or seek an extension.
- The case was closed on December 15, 2008 without entry of discharge for failure to file the Certificate; notice of closing was mailed December 17, 2008.
- More than eight years later (June 27, 2017) Debtor filed an ex parte motion to reopen the case to file the Certificate and obtain a discharge, and concurrently filed a Certificate dated June 26, 2017.
- The motion offered only that Debtor "lost communication with my lawyer" and was not informed when to take the course; it alleged no valid excuse for the >8‑year delay.
- Court applied the four‑factor test used in similar post‑closing Certificate motions and denied reopening (but waived the reopening filing fee) and struck the late Certificate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cause exists to reopen a closed Chapter 7 to allow late filing of the financial management Certificate | Barrett: reopen to file Certificate and obtain discharge; waived fee requested | Court/creditors: no valid excuse for >8‑year delay; notice of closing received; reopening discretionary and requires cause | Denied—Debtor failed to show cause to reopen; fee waiver granted |
| Whether the delay in completing and filing the Certificate is timely | Barrett: completed course in 2017 and filed Certificate then | Court: >8‑year delay is extreme and frustrates statutory purpose of post‑petition course | Denied—delay is untimely and weighs against reopening |
| Whether counsel’s fault excuses delay | Barrett: asserted loss of communication with counsel | Court: failure to stay in contact was Debtor’s fault; no showing counsel’s fault | Denied—factor favors denial |
| Whether creditors are prejudiced by late discharge | Barrett: did not argue prejudice | Court: lengthy delay prejudices creditors and undermines fairness/integrity | Denied—prejudice factor favors denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosinski v. Rosinski, 759 F.2d 539 (6th Cir. 1985) (decision to reopen bankruptcy case is committed to bankruptcy court's sound discretion)
- In re Johnson, 500 B.R. 594 (Bankr. D. Minn.) (denying motion to reopen to file late post‑petition financial management certificate)