Sharon Louise Owens
10-72509
Bankr. W.D. Va.Aug 9, 2013Background
- Debtor Sharon Louise Owens filed a pro se Chapter 7 petition on October 20, 2010; discharge and case closure occurred on March 21, 2011.
- More than two years later (July 17, 2013) Owens sought to reopen the case to sign a reaffirmation agreement with her mortgage lender and asked to waive the reopen fee; the Court denied the request.
- Owens again requested reopening (August 6, 2013), explaining she and the lender were discussing a loan modification to reduce monthly payments and asserting she did not know a reaffirmation must be executed before discharge.
- The Bankruptcy Court treated the motions as seeking reopening solely to permit a post‑discharge reaffirmation of a secured mortgage debt.
- The Court concluded it lacked authority to allow post‑discharge reaffirmations because 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1) requires reaffirmation agreements to be made before discharge.
- The Court also explained that HAMP eligibility does not require a prior reaffirmation and that the debtor may still make payments or seek a modification outside the bankruptcy reopening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reopen a closed Chapter 7 case so the debtor can enter a reaffirmation agreement post‑discharge | Owens: Court should reopen to allow reaffirmation so she can keep her home; she was unaware reaffirmation must precede discharge | Court: Statute bars enforceable reaffirmations made after discharge; reopening to permit one would conflict with § 524(c)(1) | Denied — reopening to allow a post‑discharge reaffirmation is impermissible under § 524(c)(1) |
| Whether a HAMP mortgage modification requires a prior reaffirmation | Owens: Believes lender will require reaffirmation as condition of modification | Court: HAMP directives and precedent do not require a reaffirmation for HAMP eligibility; lender cannot insist on it | Held — HAMP eligibility does not depend on prior reaffirmation; debtor can pursue modification without reopening bankruptcy |
Key Cases Cited
- No cited authorities in the opinion have official reporter citations; the Court relied on prior unpublished or non‑reported bankruptcy decisions and Treasury guidance when discussing HAMP eligibility.