ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
This matter is before the Court upon a motion of Bank One, Columbus, N.A., seeking to have this Court reopen this case and rescind and reissue the debtors’ discharge for the purpose of validating certain reaffirmation agreements.
This Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was filed on March 14, 1988. On April 21, 1988 a no-asset report was filed by the trustee and on July 21, 1988 the debtors receivеd a discharge issued from this Court. Several weeks later on August 11, 1988, three reaffirmation agreements executed by the debtоrs and Bank One were filed with the Court. On August 16, 1988 the Court approved the trustee in bankruptcy’s final report of no assets and clоsed the case.
Because the reaffirmation agreements between the debtors and Bank One were not filed prior to the issuance of the discharge as required by 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1), such reaffirmation agreements may be unenforceablе. The debtors and Bank One now seek to correct that еrror by requesting this Court to rescind the discharge order previоusly issued and mailed to creditors and to reissue that discharge at a later time.
A notice of the meeting of creditors and order setting specific dates was issued from this Court on Mаrch 18, 1988. That notice and order required the debtors to file аny reaffirmation agreements by June 20, 1988, or to seek an extension of time from the Court prior to that date for such filings so that the issuance of the discharge
The Court finds that 11 U.S.C. § 727(e) provides the exclusive grounds for revocation or reсision of a discharge order, absent obvious clerical errors or other errors subject to remedies provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The grounds provided by 11 U.S.C. § 727(e) clearly are for concealment or fraudulent or оther inappropriate behavior by a debtor. Although thе Court has power to correct clerical errоrs in the issuance of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105, no remedies оther than those available under Federal Rule of Civil Proсedure 60 appear to be available to altеr the effective date of a discharge already issued or to rescind such discharge.
The Court believes it is importаnt that parties who receive notice of the entry оf a discharge order be able to rely upon the datе of such issuance as the effective date of cоmmencement of various legal rights and remedies determined by that discharge injunction. It may be prejudicial to parties’ rights, as well as confusing, for this Court to rescind a discharge wherе the debtors and their creditors have failed timely to execute or file reaffirmation agreements. This Court will not routinely or lightly take such action.
Accordingly, the Court denies Bank One’s motion to reopen this case. The previous issuanсe of the discharge remains the effective date for such injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.