Salee Amina Mohammed
25-21265
| Bankr. D. Utah | May 16, 2025Background
- Debtor Salee Amina Mohammed filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition pro se on March 14, 2025, without first obtaining the required prepetition credit counseling certificate.
- Instead, Mohammed marked a “Temporary Waiver Certification” seeking extra time for counseling, but failed to attach necessary documentation or properly request an extension or waiver as required by statute and local rules.
- The court dismissed her case on April 2, 2025, for noncompliance with Section 109(h) of the Bankruptcy Code.
- Mohammed filed two subsequent motions to vacate the dismissal, citing her alleged medical disabilities and arguing she should be excused from the counseling requirement.
- The court held multiple hearings, at which the debtor appeared once (and appeared able to participate via video) but was absent at the crucial hearing for her motion for reconsideration.
- The bankruptcy judge struck or denied the motion, holding that failure to comply with clear statutory and procedural requirements was not grounds for relief, and no exceptional circumstances were present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to obtain credit counseling | Medical issues justify waiver/extension | No waiver, filed requirements | Dismissal proper; no eligibility under § 109(h) |
| Procedural deficiencies in seeking relief | Disabilities and lack of notice are excuses | Rules must be followed | Procedural missteps bar relief/reconsideration |
| Grounds for Rule 60(b) relief | Court misunderstood her disability | No mistake by court or party | Rule 60(b) does not apply—relief denied |
| Exceptional circumstances for late compliance | Disability and hardships are exceptional | Law must be uniformly applied | No exceptional circumstances found |
Key Cases Cited
- Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999) (explains standards for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), focusing on mistake and excusable neglect)
- In re Wallace, 298 B.R. 435 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2003) (ignorance of the law is not an excuse for noncompliance by pro se litigants)
- Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680 (10th Cir. 2020) (Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- U.S. v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534 (10th Cir. 2014) (motion to reconsider not a vehicle to revisit previously addressed issues)