504 B.R. 682
1st Cir. BAP2014Background
- Debtor Baboucar B. Taal filed a Chapter 13 petition on May 13, 2013 and submitted a credit-counseling certificate claiming compliance.
- The first certificate showed counseling completed 259 days before filing (outside the 180-day window); a second certificate was filed showing counseling completed 5 days after the petition.
- The Chapter 13 trustee moved to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1) for failure to complete required prepetition credit counseling within 180 days.
- Debtor opposed, arguing (a) he had completed counseling within the statutory period and (b) alternatively that he qualified for an exigent-circumstances exception under § 109(h)(3) or equitable relief; he also later raised due-process claims on appeal.
- The bankruptcy court found the certificates did not satisfy the timing requirement, rejected the exigent-circumstances claim (noting no written § 109(h)(3) certification and conflict with the sworn petition), and dismissed the case; the Panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Debtor met § 109(h)(1) prepetition credit-counseling requirement or qualified for § 109(h)(3) exigent-circumstances exception | Taal: he completed counseling within the 180-day period (and later argued inability to pay justified exigent circumstances) | Trustee/Court: certificates show counseling outside 180 days or after filing; Debtor failed to submit the required written exigent-circumstances certification and did not show attempts to obtain counseling within 7 days | Held: Debtor did not satisfy § 109(h)(1); exigent-circumstances exception was not met; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard: factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo)
- Howard v. Lexington Invs., Inc., 284 F.3d 320 (1st Cir. 2002) (Chapter 13 dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Fiorillo, 455 B.R. 297 (D. Mass. 2011) (all three elements of § 109(h)(3)(A) must be satisfied for exigent-circumstances waiver)
- In re Falcone, 370 B.R. 462 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) (same: exigent-circumstances exception requires meeting each statutory element)