In re Williams
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Thomas J. Tucker
This case is before the Court on the Debtor‘s motion, filed February 9, 2022, entitled “Ex-Parte Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case” (Docket # 40, the “Motion“). The Motion seeks to reopen this case to enable the Debtor to file a Financial Management Course Certificate (the “Financial Management Course Certificate“), and then receive a discharge.
The Motion was filed more than 20 months after this case was closed without a discharge.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motion.
A. Background
With the assistance of her attorney, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 on February 1, 2019, commencing this case. That same day, the Clerk issued a notice that the first meeting of creditors would be held on March 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. (Docket # 5, the “Notice“). The Notice was served on the Debtor‘s attorney by e-mail, by the Court‘s ECF system, on February 1, 2019. On February 3, 2019, the Notice was served by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center by email on the Chapter 7 Trustee and on the Debtor‘s attorney, among others, and the Notice was served by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center by mail on the Debtor. (Docket # 7).
Under
Financial Management Course Certificate “within 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors,” which meant that the deadline was May 13, 2019.5
The Debtor failed to file the Financial Management Course Certificate by the May 13, 2019 deadline, or at any time thеreafter while the case remained open. The Debtor also failed to file a motion to extend the deadline to file the Financial Management Course Certificate.
On May 14, 2019, after the case had been fully administered, the case was closed without a discharge, due to the Debtor‘s failure to file the Financial Manаgement Course Certificate. (Docket # 38.) That same day, the Court‘s ECF system served the Debtor‘s attorney by e-mail with a notice that the Debtor‘s bankruptcy case had been closed without a discharge. (Id.) A notice of the same thing was served on the Debtor by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center, by mail, on May 16, 2019. (Docket # 39). Such notice stated: “All creditors and parties in interest are notified that the above-captioned case has been closed without entry of discharge as Debtor(s) did not file Official Form 423, Certification About a Financial Management Course.” (Id.)
More than 20 months later, on February 9, 2022, the Debtor filed the Motion (Docket # 40). The Motion states, in relevant part:
3. Debtor misunderstood the requirement of having to take the Personal Financial Management Course.
4. Since Debtor relied on this belief, a Personal Financial Management Course Certificate was not filed in this case,
as is required by Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b)(7).
(Mot. at ¶¶ 3-4).
B. Discussion
The Motion does not demonstrate a valid excuse for (1) the Debtor‘s failure to timely complete the financial manаgement course and file the required Financial Management Course Certificate; and (2) the Debtor waiting more than 20 months after this case was closed before she moved to reopen it.
Section 350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Federal Bankruptcy Rule 5010,6 and Local Bankruptcy Rule 5010-17 govern motions to reopen a case for the purpose of filing a Financial Management Course Certificate. Bankruptcy Code Section 350(b) states that “a case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.”
“It is well settled that decisions as to whether to reopen bankruptcy cases . . . are committed to the sound discretion of the bankruptcy judge . . . .” Rosinski v. Rosinski (In re Rosinski), 759 F.2d 539, 540-41 (6th Cir. 1985) (сitations omitted). “To make the decision, courts may consider ‘the equities of each case with an eye toward the principles which underlie
Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(3) states, in relevant part, that “the court may enlargе the time to file the statement required under Rule 1007(b)(7) [(the Financial Management Course Certificate)] . . . only to the extent and under the conditions stated in Rule 1007(c).
Several reported bankruptcy cases, including cases decided by the undersigned judge, have considered whether “cause” exists to grant a debtor‘s motion to reopen a case to file a Financial Management Course Certificate after the debtor‘s case was closed without a discharge. Such cases аpply a four-part test, and have denied the motion where the Debtor had not completed a post-petition financial management course and filed the motion to reopen and a Financial Management Course Certificate within a relatively short time after the case was closed. The four factors that these cases have considered are: “(1) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to comply; (2) whether the request was timely; (3) whether fault lies with counsel; and (4) whether creditors are prejudiced.” See, e.g., In re Barrett, 569 B.R. 687, 690-92 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (applying the 4-part test and denying a debtor‘s motion to reopen to file a Financial Management Course Certificate where the debtor had not completed the post-petition financial management course and did not file the motion to reopen and the Financial Management Course Certificate until more than 8 years after the case was closed); In re Chrisman, No. 09-30662, 2016 WL 4447251, at *2-3 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2016) (denying a debtor‘s motion to reoрen to file a Financial Management Course Certificate where the debtor had not completed the post-petition financial management course and did not file the motion to reopen and the Financial Management Course Certificate until more than 7 years after the case was closed); In re McGuiness, No. 08-10746, 2015 WL 6395655, at *2, 4 (Bankr. D.R.I. Oсt. 22, 2015) (more than 7 year delay); In re Johnson, 500 B.R. 594, 597 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013) (more than 4 year delay); cf. In re Heinbuch, No. 06-60670, 2016 WL 1417913, *3-4 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio April 7, 2016) (approximately 7 year delay).
This Court has denied motions to reopen in numerous cases, where the delay ranged from 10 months to more than 11 and a half years. See In re Lewis, No. 16-54136, 2022 WL 189020 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2022) (Chapter 13 case) (delay of more than two years); In re Motley, No. 18-53216, 2022 WL 141671 Bankr. E.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2022) (delay of almost 3 years); In re Brown, No. 19-47989, 2022 WL 24056 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. January 3, 2022) (delay of 15 months); In re Rivera, 628 B.R. 309 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2021) (delay of 2 years and 9 months); In re Szymanski, 625 B.R. 875 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2021) (delay of more than 18 months); In re Hendricks, 625 B.R. 694 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2021) (delay of more than 14 months); In re Smith, 625 B.R. 41 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2021) (delay of almost 17 months); In re Lemon, 625 B.R. 47 (Bankruptcy E.D. Mich. 2021) (delay of 15 months); In re Aziz, 622 B.R. 694 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020) (delay of four years and eight months); In re Smith, 620 B.R. 888 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020)(delay of two and a half years); In re Suell, 619 B.R. 642 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020) (delay of almost two years); In re Raza, 617 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020) (delay of 11 and a half years); In re Locklear, 613 B.R. 108 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020) (delay of nearly 12 months); In re Jackson, 613 B.R. 113 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020) (delay of 13 months); In re Szczepanski, 596 B.R. 859 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2019) (delay of more than 15 months); In re Lockhart, 582 B.R. 1 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) (delay of more than 1 year); Barrett, 569 B.R. at 688 (delay of more than 8 years); In re Kessler, 588 B.R. 191 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) (delay of 5 years); In re Moore, 591 B.R. 680 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) (delay of 10 months); In re Garnett, 579 B.R. 818, 823 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018) (delay of more than 5 and one half years); In re Rondeau, 574 B.R. 824 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (delay of more than 3 years); In re Wilson, 575 B.R. 783 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (delay of almost 15 months); In re Whitaker, 574 B.R. 819 (Bankr. E.D. Mich 2017) (delay of 11 months); In re Bragg, 577 B.R. 265 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) (delay of almost 11 months).
The Court will apply this four-factor approach in this case. The Court finds that the Debtor has not shown either cause to reopen this cаse, or cause to grant the Debtor a retroactive extension of the deadline to file the Financial Management Course Certificate.
Factor 1: whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to comply
The Motion does not demonstrate a reasonable explanation, or a vаlid excuse, (1) why the Debtor failed to timely complete the financial management course and file the required Financial Management Course Certificate, by the May 13, 2019 deadline; or (2) why the Debtor waited more than 20 months after this case was closed on May 14, 2019 before she moved to reopen the
The Motion alleges, as an excuse for the Debtor‘s failure to timely complete the financial management course and file the required Financial Management Course Certificate, or to file a motion to extend the May 13, 2019 deadline to do so, that the “Debtor misunderstood the requirement of having to take the Personal Financial Management Course.” (Mot. at ¶ 3.) This is not a valid excuse, especially in a case like this one, where the Debtor was at all times represented by an attorney.
The Debtor received notice of the requirement to file the Financial Management Course Certificate to obtаin a discharge. Although not required to do so, the Clerk of this Court reminded the Debtor and her attorney of the requirement to file the Financial Management Course Certificate, and the deadline for doing so, in a notice filed on March 22, 2019. (Docket # 32). That same day, that notice was served on the Debtor‘s attorney, by e-mail, through the Court‘s ECF system. And the Bankruptcy Noticing Center mailed that notice to the Debtor on March 24, 2019. (See Docket # 33). The notice stated:
NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT TO FILE A CERTIFICATION ABOUT A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COURSE
Notice is hereby given that, subject to limited exceptions, a debtor must complete an instructional course in personal financial management in order to receive a discharge. Pursuant to Rule 1007(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the debtor(s) must complete and file a Certification About a Financial Management Course (Official Form 423) as described in 11 U.S.C. § 111.
Debtor(s) and/or debtor(s)’ attorney is/are hereby notified that Official Form 423 must be filed before a discharge can be entered. Debtor(s) and/or debtor(s)’ attorney is/are hereby notified that in a
chapter 7 case the debtоr(s) must file Official Form 423 within 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341 of the Code. Failure to file the certification will result in the case being closed without an entry of discharge. If the debtor(s) subsequently file(s) a Motion to Reopen the Case to allow for the filing of the Official Form 423, the debtor(s) must pay the full reopening fee duе for filing the motion.
(Docket # 33) (footnote omitted) (bold in original).
Even assuming that the Debtor had a misunderstanding about the financial management course requirement before her case was closed, she does not allege, and she cannot reasonably and credibly allege, that she did not know that her case was closed without a discharge. The Debtor received the Notice of the Final Decree in May 2019, which clearly stated that her case had “been closed without entry of discharge” because the Debtor “did not file Official Form 423, Certification About a Financial Management Course.”8
The Motion also does not explain why the Debtor waited more than 20 months after the case was closеd to move to reopen the case. As already stated, the Debtor was informed, by the notice described above, which was mailed to her on May 16, 2019, that his case had been closed without a discharge, and why it had been so closed.9 Yet the Debtor did nothing to try to rectify this for more than 20 months afterwards. The alleged misunderstanding by the Debtor, of the need to take a Financial Management Court to obtain a discharge, is not a valid excuse for such a long delay by the Debtor in moving to reopen this case.
The delay of more than 20 months in the Debtor‘s completion of the financial management course,10 and the delay of more than 20 months in the Debtor‘s moving to reopen this case, are far too long. Such a long delay frustrates the goals of the legislation which added the financial management course requirement as a condition for obtaining a Chapter 7 discharge. In Chrisman, the court explained:
Congress added participation in a post-petition financial management instructional course as a condition to obtaining a Chapter 7 discharge to the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(11) . One of the goals of the legislation and this requirement was to restore individual financial responsibility to the bankruptcy system.. . . .
“The main purpose of a bankruptcy filing is to obtain a discharge, and any action that delays that benefit is mystifying and therefore requires additional justification. Justification supports the goals of not only the bankruptcy system, but also the purpose of the financial management course. Allowing a debtor to take the financial management course years after its target completion provides no educational benefit to the debtor for the intervening years and denigrates its purpose. Moreover, it maligns the integrity of the system and its fairness to all parties....It is unfair to creditors to allow a debtor to avoid the responsibilities established by the bankruptcy code and rules, only to later want to fulfill those requirements when faced with а resulting unpleasantness.”
Chrisman, 2016 WL 4447251, at *1, *2 (quoting Heinbuch, 2016 WL 1417913, at *2 ). In Chrisman, as in this case, “neither the instructional component nor the paperwork component were timely accomplished,” and the court found that “[t]he Congressional purposes in adding the
The magnitude of the Debtor‘s delay in moving to reopen this case is significant, and this factor strongly weighs against granting the Motion.
Factor 3: whether fault lies with counsel
The Debtor has been represented by counsel in this case at all times, but the Debtor did not allege in the Motion that her failure to timely complete the Financial Management Course and to file a Financial Management Course Certificate was the fault of her counsel. And the Motion does not allege that the delay more than 20 months to move to reopen this case was the fault of the Debtor‘s attorney. This factor weighs against granting the Motion.
Factor 4: whether creditors are prejudiced
In Chrisman, the court reasoned, with regard to the рrejudice factor, that “[t]o spring a discharge on creditors more than seven years later that many of them will now not even receive, at peril of violating the unknown discharge, is simply unfair.” Id. at *3. The delay in this case is shorter than the delay in Chrisman, but it is still very long. Generally speaking, the longer the delay, the greater the prejudice. Here, there was a very long delay. This factor, therefоre, also weighs against granting the Motion.
In summary, all of the relevant factors weigh against a finding of cause to reopen this case. The Debtor has failed to demonstrate cause to reopen this case. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motion (Docket # 40) is denied.
2. The Debtor is not prohibited from filing a new bankruptcy case.
Signed on February 15, 2022
/s/ Thomas J. Tucker
Thomas J. Tucker
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Notes
(7) Unless an approved provider of an instructional course concerning personal financial management has notified the court that a debtor has completed the course after filing the petition:
(A) An individual debtor in a chapter 7 . . . case shall file a statement of completion of the course, prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Form[.]
In a chapter 7 case, the debtor shall file the statement required by subdivision (b)(7) within 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341 of the Code[.]
(c) Grant of discharge
(1) In a chapter 7 case, on expiration of the times fixed for objecting to discharge and for filing a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 1017(e), the court shall forthwith grant the discharge, except that the court shall not grant the discharge if:
. . .
(H) the debtor has not filed with the court a statement of completion of a course concerning personal financial management if required by Rule 1007(b)(7)[.]
(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless–
. . .
(11) after filing the petition, the debtor failed to complete an instructional course concerning personal financial management described in section 111[.]