Willie Mae Garnett, 579 B.R. 818

Debtor Willie Mae Garnett filed a Chapter 7 petition on March 16, 2012; the § 341 meeting was set for April 26, 2012.
Bankruptcy rules required filing an Official Form 23 (Certificate of completion of a financial management course) within 60 days after the § 341 meeting (deadline June 25, 2012) to obtain a § 727 discharge.
Debtor failed to file the Certificate by the deadline; the case was closed without a discharge on June 29, 2012, and notice of the final decree (stating no discharge due to missing Form 23) was mailed July 1, 2012.
More than five and one-half years later (January 31, 2018), Debtor moved to reopen the case to file a Certificate and requested waiver of the filing fee, claiming she had completed the course.
The Court applied the established four-factor test (reasonable explanation; timeliness; counsel’s fault; creditor prejudice) for reopening to file a Certificate and found the Debtor gave no valid explanation for the initial failure or the 5+ year delay.
The Court denied the motion to reopen (thus no late discharge) but waived the filing fee; the Debtor was not barred from filing a new bankruptcy case.

Issue	Debtor's Argument	Court/Opposing Argument	Held
Whether cause exists to reopen the closed Chapter 7 case to file a late Form 23 (Certificate)	Debtor: she completed the course and now has the Certificate; reopening will allow entry of discharge	Court: reopening requires cause; apply 4-factor test and Debtor gave no adequate reason for the original failure or for the 5+ year delay; creditors prejudiced by long delay	Denied: no cause to reopen; Certificate filed too late to entitle discharge
Whether the long delay in completing the course and seeking reopening is excusable	Debtor: mistaken belief she had completed course; lack of awareness about needing a counselor to obtain the certificate	Court: Debtor and counsel received notice the case closed without discharge; delay unexplained and unreasonable	Delay is untimely and weighs heavily against reopening
Whether counsel’s conduct excuses the failure to file Certificate	Debtor: implicitly blames confusion; does not allege counsel’s fault	Court: no allegation or evidence that counsel was at fault; fault lies with Debtor	No excusal for counsel fault; factor weighs against reopening
Whether creditors are prejudiced by reopening after long delay	Debtor: implied benefit of cure outweighs prejudice	Court: long delay harms creditors and undermines purpose of financial management requirement and finality	Creditors prejudiced; factor weighs against reopening

Rosinski v. Rosinski, 759 F.2d 539 (6th Cir. 1985) (reopening decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and rely on equitable considerations)
In re Barrett, 569 B.R. 687 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (denying reopening to file Certificate after extended delay)
In re Johnson, 500 B.R. 594 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013) (denying reopening where post-petition course and filing were years late)
In re Rondeau, 574 B.R. 824 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (rejecting motion to reopen after multi-year delay)
In re Wilson, 575 B.R. 783 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (denying reopening where delay undermined legislative objectives)
In re Whitaker, 574 B.R. 819 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (noting timeliness and prejudice are key to reopening requests)
In re Bragg, 577 B.R. 265 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (denying reopening for untimely Certificate filing)