In re Charles A Wade

Jun 29, 2026
26-30675

This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2026

Tyson A. Crist

United States Bankruptcy Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR’S REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY WAIVER OF THE CREDIT COUNSELING REQUIREMENT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3) (DOC. 16) IN RESOLUTION OF THE ORDER, SUA SPONTE, TO SHOW CAUSE FOR POTENTIAL DISMISSAL OF CASE UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), AND ORDERING OTHER MATTERS (DOC. 30)

I. Introduction

This case concerns a unique set of circumstances, as testified to by the pro se debtor, based upon which the Court determined to grant a temporary waivеr of the credit counseling requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3).

II. Background

On March 30, 2026, Charles A. Wade (“Mr. Wade” and “Debtor”), appearing pro se, filed a Voluntary Petition (Doc. 1) (the “Petition”) under chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). In response to the requirement to “[t]ell the court whether you hаve received a briefing about credit counseling[,]” the Debtor checked the box in his Petition, which was signed under penalty of perjury, to certify that he “asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days aftеr [he] made [his] request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.” Pet. at 5, Part 5, item 15. In the Request for 30-day Temporary Waiver of Credit Counseling Briefing Requirement (the “Request for Waiver”) included with Mr. Wade’s Petition and as separately filed (Doc. 9), his explanation of why he was unable to obtain credit counseling briefing before filing for bankruptcy and the exigent circumstances that required him to file the case, he only wrote “extreme poverty, Mental Health Disability PTSD.” Req. for Waiver (Doc. 1 at 9; Doc. 9). On April 9, 2026, the Debtor filed a Certificate of Cоunseling (Doc. 16), which indicates that Mr. Wade completed the credit counseling briefing in compliance with 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h) and 111 on April 9, 2026, which was ten (10) days after he filed his Petition (Doc. 1) on March 30, 2026.

Upon review, the Court determined that the Request for Waiver—the Debtor’s certification under § 109(h)(3)1—did not provide sufficient detail for the Court to determine if the Debtor met the criteria for a temporary waiver ‍​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‍of the credit counseling briefing requirement. Therefore, on June 3, 2026, the Court entered an order sua sponte (Doc. 30) (the “Show Cause Order”) setting this matter for an evidentiary hearing (the “Show Cause Hearing”) on the Request for Waiver and to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to § 707(a) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) 1017 for failure to complete the credit briefing required by 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) prior to filing the Petition.

The Show Cause Hearing was held on June 25, 2026, with Mr. Wade, again, appearing pro se. Also in appearance was Pamela Arndt, Counsel for the United States Trustee. Mr. Wade testified, showed the Court documents in support of his assertions, and ultimately the Court accepted two of his documents into evidence, being Exhibits A and B, which were a screenshot of chat between him and the crеdit counseling agency, Abacus Credit Counseling, and a letter from an employee of Abacus Credit Counseling explaining the details of when Debtor began and completed his credit counseling.

III. Facts

The Debtor testified that while he was living at 439 Grafton Avenue, #2, Dayton, Ohio 45406,2 he had been unable to рay his electric bill with AES, that he was close to having his service shut off, and that he was very concerned about this because his daughter, who he has shared custody of, was staying with him and without electricity he would have no heat. Thus, he explained that he began the process of preparing to file his bankruptcy online through the Court’s website, presumably through the Court’s Electronic Self Representation (eSR) portal on Saturday, March 28, 2026, but he realized shortly into that process that he needed to complete a credit counseling course in order to file. On that sаme day, through a search on the internet, Mr. Wade found Abacus Credit Counseling (“Abacus”) and registered to take the course, and in fact began the online credit counseling course late that evening, completing all requirements except the final two steps, which required him to spеak to a live credit counselor and to pay for the course to receive his certificate of credit counseling. Mr. Wade testified that he was unable to make the payment at that time due to more urgent expenses that had depleted his funds on hand, and that he neеded to work3 to get additional funds to complete the payment in order to get his certificate. Mr. Wade testified that he applied for a waiver of the fee with Abacus, but he only received a minor reduction.

Mr. Wade testified that he was unable to pay the fee for the сredit counseling on Saturday, March 28, 2026,4 and therefore needed to earn some money before he could complete his counseling and obtain the certificate. However, after a day of “dashing” for Door Dash, Mr. Wade’s ability to pay for credit counseling was further delayed due to an incident during a traffic stop for expired license plate by the Englewood Police Department on March 29, 2026, for which all charges were dropped against him, but which not only caused his car to be impounded, but also required him to get physical therapy for injuries allegedly suffered. Therefore, Mr. Wade had to use the funds he was planning to use to pay for his credit counseling certificate to retrieve his car from the impound lot. Mr. Wade testified that he filed his bankruptcy petition on Monday, March 30, 2026, the following day, because he feared that his electricity would be disconnected. Ultimately, Mr. Wade was finally able to speak with a live counselor and to pay for the course on April 9, 2026, the same day he filed his Certificate of Credit Counseling (Doc. 16). The Court admitted Debtor’s Exhibit A, a copy of an online chat with an Abacus representative, and Exhibit B, a letter sent by Abacus to Mr. Wade as a PDF attachment to an email. Both Exhibits provided evidence of the timeline described by the Debtor, stating that he registered for the online course on March 28, 2026, but was unable to complete the final steps to obtain a certificate at that time, and subsequently submitted payment for the course and completed the live counseling requirement on April 9, 2026. The United States Trustee, through a brief cross-examination of the Debtor, clarified this series of events, and ultimately did not have an objection to the Court granting the Request for Waiver.

IV. Analysis

Under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1), an individual may not be a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code unless they have, “during the 180-day period ending on the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency” an individual or group briеfing. Once completed, this is evidenced by a certificate of credit counseling. The Debtor readily admits that he had not completed the final two steps to obtain his credit counseling certificate at the time of filing, but he asserts that this was because he lacked the funds necessary to complete the final step—to pay for the counseling.

Section 109(h)(1) is subject to paragraph (3), which provides a three-part test under which “the requirements of paragraph ‍​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‍(1) shall not apply with respect to a debtor” although this is, in turn, subject to subparagraph (B) of § 109(h)(3). See 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A) and (B). Subparagraph (B) essentially limits the duration of a temporary waiver to thirty (30) days, except that the Court can extend this by order for an additional fifteen (15) days. Nonetheless, in this case Mr. Wade filed his Certificate of Counseling (Doc. 16) on April 9, 2026, just ten (10) days after filing his Petition, such that if he is ablе to satisfy the three elements under § 109(h)(3)(A) his chapter 7 bankruptcy would not need to be dismissed for ineligibility.

As the Court previously set forth in its Show Cause Order, the relevant portion of the Bankruptcy Code, § 109(h)(3)(A), that governs temporary waivers—exemptions—states as follows:

(3)(A) Subject to subparagraрh (B), the requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a debtor who submits to the court a certification that—

(i) describes exigent circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1);

(ii) states that the debtor requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph (1) during the 7—day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and

(iii) is satisfactory to the court.

11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A). Thus, the question before the Court is whether Mr. Wade can establish these three criteria.

There is some support in caselaw for the notion “that a debtor who lacks sufficient resources to pay for credit counseling may, under the right circumstances, have a de facto ‘inability’ to obtain pre-bankruptcy credit counseling for purposеs of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A)(ii)[,]” and indigency may be a “satisfactory” reason for a temporary waiver pursuant to § 109(h)(3)(A)(iii)). In re Piontek, 346 B.R. 126, 130 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2006). However, as also observed in the Piontek case, “Charles Dickens once wrote in his masterpiece Great Expectations, ‘Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There’s no better rule.’ ” Id. Thus, although § 109(h)(3)(A) states that the requirement to obtain the credit counseling briefing prior to filing bankruptcy can be waived ‍​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‍basеd upon a certification, this Court found it necessary, in this case (particularly when the debtor is pro se), to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Debtor could meet the criteria.5

As noted below, this Court has previously concluded that under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) bankruptcy courts have discrеtion, based on unique factual circumstances, to decline to dismiss a debtor’s bankruptcy case for failing to strictly comply with § 109(h), as confirmed by the existence of § 109(h)(3)(A). In re Risden-Curnutte, No. 25-31656, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 3074, at *3-4 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2025) (citing In re Hess, 347 B.R. 489 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2006)). The In re Kernan case is instructive to resolution of the matter before this Court. 358 B.R. 537 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2007). Therein, the Bankruptcy Court observed that, “[h]ad Congress intended the reсent amendments [of BAPCPA6] to provide a nondiscretionary dismissal of a case in the context presented here, it would have included provisions to achieve that result.” Id. at 539. That Court further observed that “§ 707, which relates to dismissal of a case, employs the permissive ‘may.’ Moreovеr, the code section defining eligibility for bankruptcy relief, § 109(h), does not include a provision for mandatory dismissal.” Id. In short, because § 707(a) “does not specifically provide for the dismissal of a case for the failure of a debtor to receive the requisite credit counseling,” аnd employs the permissive “may,” Congress granted bankruptcy courts discretion to deal with special circumstances such as this. Id.; see also In re Hess, 347 B.R. 489, 498 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2006). This is confirmed by § 109(h)(3)(A), which contains the three-factor requirement for certifications by debtors who seek a temporary waiver of the requirement to havе completed the credit counseling briefing prior to filing bankruptcy.

The unique facts of this case, in which the Debtor appears to have earnestly, albeit if not imperfectly, attempted to comply with the requirements of the statute, substantially completed the online portion of the credit counseling prior to filing bankruptcy, and took action as soon as possible to complete the counseling process after obtaining the necessary funds to pay the associated fee, but impeded by an apparent interim run-in with law enforcement and need to get his vehicle out of impound (and obtain physical therapy), justify a temporary waiver of the credit counseling requirement under the three-part test that permits a temporary waiver of up to at least thirty (30) days. 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A) and (B). The Court finds that the Debtor’s testimony and Exhibits A and B, along with documentation that he introduced during the Show Cause Hearing to corroborate his testimony, support that there were “exigent circumstances” ‍​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‍meriting a waiver under these unusual circumstances, the Debtor could not complete the briefing within the seven-day period, and the tеstimony and evidence submitted were satisfactory to the Court. 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A).7 The Court also finds that Debtor’s bankruptcy, which was his first since 2015, was not filed in bad faith.

V. Conclusion

The Debtor, under the circumstances, took reasonable steps to timely complete the credit counseling briefing prior to filing his chapter 7 bankruptcy case and completed it when he was able to pay the associated fee. No creditor or party-in-interest, other than the United States Trustee, appeared at the Show Cause Hearing or otherwise opposed granting the Debtor a temporаry waiver under § 109(h)(3)(A). And the United States Trustee, who cross-examined Mr. Wade during the hearing, did not oppose the temporary waiver. Therefore, based on the specific and unique circumstances of this case, the Court hereby grants the Debtor a temporary waiver of ten (10) days under § 109(h)(3)(A), such that his Certificate of Counseling (Doc. 16) is deemed timely, Mr. Wade is eligible to be a debtor in this chapter 7 case and therefore the Court declines to dismiss this case for cause under § 707(a) based on the Court’s prior Show Cause Order (Doc. 30) entered on June 3, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Copies to:

All Creditors and Parties in Interest, Plus

Charles A. Wade, 1139 Glen Kegley Dr., Xenia, OH 45385-4783

Pamela Arndt, Office of The United States Trustee, 170 North High Street, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215 (Counsel for the United States Trustee)

Notes

1
Hereinafter, unless specifically noted, all sections cited are sections of the Bankruptcy Code.
2
Debtor testified that the address he has used as his residence address in his Petition and in other filings, which is in Xenia, Ohio, is a family member’s address.
3
Mr. Wade periodically works as a “dasher” for Door Dash.
4
Mr. Wade also аpplied for and was granted (Doc. 21) a waiver of the chapter 7 filing fee based upon his Application to Have the Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Doc. 7) (the “Application”), in which he stated under penalty of perjury that he had one dependent, that he has no average monthly net income, that he receives Medicaid assistance, and that he is “unemployed PTSD filing for disability[.]” Application at 1. In addition, Mr. Wade asserted that he had $0.00 in cash and only $23.00 in his checking account at the time of filing. Application at 2.
5
The Court has previously proceеded in a similar fashion, which resulted in granting a temporary waiver, albeit in a different unique circumstance in which the debtor was represented by counsel. See Order Concerning Credit Briefing Requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) (Doc. 8) and Withdrawing Order, Sua Sponte, Scheduling: (1) Show Cause Hearing; and (2) Hearing to Review Attornеy Fees, and Ordering Other Matters (Doc. 13), In re Risden-Curnutte, No. 25-31656, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 3074 ‍​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‍(Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2025) (granting a temporary waiver and not dismissing the debtor’s case under § 707(a)).
6
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23.
7
The narrow circumstances involving a permanent waiver of the credit briefing requirement do not apply to this case. See 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(4).