611 B.R. 279
Bankr. E.D. Mich.2020Background
- Debtor Tierra Jones filed a Chapter 7 petition on Feb. 23, 2018; the §341 meeting was set for Mar. 28, 2018.
- Under Rule 1007(b)(7) and §727(a)(11), Jones had to file a Certificate of completion of a post‑petition financial management course within 60 days after the §341 date (deadline May 29, 2018).
- Clerk reminders were sent (April 13, 2018 notice) and a Final Decree closing the case without a discharge for failure to file the Certificate was entered June 13, 2018 (notice mailed June 15, 2018).
- Jones did not file the Certificate while the case was open; she later completed the course on Jan. 27, 2020 and filed a motion to reopen and waive the reopen fee on Feb. 3, 2020.
- The Court applied a four‑factor test (reasonable explanation, timeliness, counsel fault, creditor prejudice) and found Jones offered no valid excuse for the long delay.
- The Court denied the motion to reopen, denied the fee waiver, and noted Jones is not prohibited from filing a new bankruptcy case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to reopen the closed Chapter 7 to permit filing the Certificate | Jones: she mistakenly thought she completed the course and only recently learned the case lacked a discharge; seeks reopening to file Certificate | Court/Opposition: long, unjustified delay; notice was sent; no cause shown; reopening is discretionary | Denied — Debtor failed to show "cause" to reopen |
| Whether the delay was excused (reasonable explanation) | Jones: forgetfulness/mistake that she had completed course | Court: receipt of Final Decree notice defeats claim; no credible excuse for 19+ month delay | Weighs against Jones; no reasonable explanation found |
| Whether a retroactive enlargement of the Rule 1007(b)(7) deadline should be granted | Jones: completed course in Jan. 2020 and requests relief to obtain discharge | Court: Rule 9006(b)(3)/1007(c) permit enlargement only for cause on motion and notice; long delay frustrates statutory purpose | Denied — no cause for retroactive extension |
| Whether the reopen filing fee should be waived | Jones: requests waiver of reopen fee | Court: Final Decree warned reopen fee must be paid; motion shows no basis for waiver | Denied — fee waiver not justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosinski v. Rosinski, 759 F.2d 539 (6th Cir. 1985) (reopening a bankruptcy case is 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 after long delay)
- In re Lockhart, 582 B.R. 6 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) (denial of motion to reopen where delay exceeded one year)
- In re Johnson, 500 B.R. 594 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013) (denial of reopening after multi‑year delay)