619 B.R. 642
Bankr. E.D. Mich.2020Background
- Debtor Mark A. Suell filed a Chapter 7 petition on July 3, 2018; the §341 meeting was set for August 1, 2018.
- Under Rules 1007(b)(7), 1007(c), 4004(c)(1)(H) and 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(11), the debtor had 60 days from the §341 date (deadline Oct. 1, 2018) to file the post‑petition financial management course certificate (Official Form 423).
- Debtor did not file the certificate or move for an extension; the case was closed without discharge on Nov. 6, 2018 and notice of closing (stating the reason) was mailed Nov. 8, 2018.
- Almost two years later (Oct. 2, 2020) the debtor moved ex parte to reopen the case to file the certificate and obtain a discharge, asserting he had now completed the course.
- The motion offered no explanation for the original failure to timely complete the course or for the nearly two‑year delay in seeking reopening, and provided no evidence the certificate had been filed.
- The court applied a four‑factor test (reasonable explanation, timeliness, counsel fault, creditor prejudice) and denied the motion, concluding the debtor did not show cause to reopen; the debtor was not barred from filing a new bankruptcy case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reopen the Chapter 7 case to allow filing of the post‑petition financial‑management certificate and grant a retroactive extension so the debtor can receive a discharge | Debtor: he has now completed the course and requests reopening so he can file the certificate and receive a discharge | Court/Respondent: debtor failed to meet the deadline, offered no excuse for the delay or for waiting nearly two years to move to reopen, and reopening would prejudice the objectives of the Code and creditors | Denied. Applying the four‑factor test, the court found no reasonable explanation, the request was untimely, fault lay with debtor (not counsel), and delay prejudiced creditors; thus no cause to reopen or grant a retroactive extension |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosinski v. Rosinski, 759 F.2d 539 (6th Cir. 1985) (decisions whether to reopen bankruptcy cases are committed to the bankruptcy court’s discretion)
- In re Barrett, 569 B.R. 687 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (applied four‑factor test and denied reopening to file certificate after a long delay)
- In re Raza, 617 B.R. 290 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (denial of motions to reopen where significant delay existed)
- In re Lockhart, 582 B.R. 1 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) (denial of motion to reopen after delay)