In re Michael B. Siddle

Jun 30, 2026
26-30636

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) DUE TO INELIGIBILITY UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1) (DOC. 22), CONCERNING ATTORNEY FEES, AND ORDERING OTHER MATTERS

On March 26, 2026, Michael B. Siddle (“Mr. Siddle” and “Debtor“), by and through his counsel of record, Randal A. Harvey (“Mr. Harvey” and “Debtor‘s Counsel“), filed a Voluntary Petition under chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code“) (Doc. 1) (the “Petition“). This case came before the Court for a hearing on June 25, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Prevailing Time), pursuant to the Court‘s Order Rescheduling: (1) Show Cause Hearing on Certificate of Counseling and Dismissal of Case Under § 707(a); and (2) Hearing to Review Attorney Fees, and Ordering Other Matters (Doc. 22), which rescheduled the show cause hearing scheduled by the Order, Sua Sponte, Scheduling: (1) Show Cause Hearing on Certificate of Counseling and Dismissal of Case Under § 707(a); and (2) Hearing to Review Attorney Fees, and Ordering Other Matters (Doc. 16) (the “Show Cause Order“), entered on May 20, 2026.

The hearing was held in-person, and in appearance were Mr. Siddle, Mr. Harvey, and Pamela Arndt, Counsel for the United States Trustee.

Upon inquiry by the Court, Debtor‘s Counsel represented that in his rush to file Mr. Siddle‘s case on March 26, 2026,1 and after having already filed the Petition, he realized he did not have a credit counseling certificate for Mr. Siddle, and when he contacted the Debtor to get the certificate, he was advised that Mr. Siddle had not taken the credit briefing. Debtor‘s Counsel stated that Mr. Siddle, within an hour of being contacted about the certificate, had completed the credit briefing and received a certificate.

The Certificate of Counseling (Doc. 14) indicates that Debtor completed the credit briefing on “March 26, 2026, at 4:28 [ ] PM EDT” (emphasis added), which was 58 minutes after he filed his Petition at “3:30 PM EDT.” Mr. Harvey, acknowledging that the credit counseling was late, moved for dismissal of this case on March 27, 2026 (Doc. 5), but asserts that he inadvertently used the wrong form motion.2 Mr. Harvey further stated that when that Motion to Dismiss was denied he “put it on the back burner” and waited for the § 341 meeting of creditors, assuming the Chapter 7 Trustee would address whether this case could proceed at that time. See Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) (Doc. 10). Mr. Harvey also stated that he and the Debtor have a disagreement as to whether he put enough emphasis on the need for Mr. Siddle to complete the credit counseling before filing his case; however, Mr. Harvey further asserted that when Mr. Siddle left his office after an initial meeting at the end of February, it was with a flyer from Cricket Debt Counseling, which is the agency that ultimately provided the Debtor‘s credit briefing, with instructions to complete the credit counseling before coming back to file. See Certificate of Counseling (Doc. 14), dated Mar. 26, 2026.

Counsel for the United States Trustee offered that, perhaps since the credit counseling was completed on the same day as the filing of the case, the counseling might be timely under the language of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1). The Court, however, concluded that although the language has changed to reflect that the credit counseling briefing can be done the same day, it would be inconsistent with the original purpose of the credit counseling briefing requirement to hold that it can be done after filing bankruptcy, and it would be inconsistent with the Court‘s previous ruling in In re Risden-Curnutte, No. 25-31656, 2025 WL 3266868, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2025) (“Under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h), an individual debtor is required to be someone who has, within 180 days of the petition date and prior to filing, ‘received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency’ a certificate of credit counseling.“) (emphasis added). See also In re Arkuszewski, 550 B.R. 374, 379-80 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (concluding that a credit briefing must be completed before the filing of the petition and a post-petition briefing completed on the petition date renders the debtor ineligible and collecting cases); In re Sultan, No. 20-12666, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 20, at *5-7 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2021) (similar)3; but see also In re Tillman, No. 17-30037, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 638 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2017) (disagreeing with Arkuszewski and determining a post-petition credit briefing completed on the same day as the petition was filed was permitted per § 109(h)).

Based upon the record of this case, the representations of counsel at the show cause hearing, and for the reasons stated by the Court on the record, this case is hereby DISMISSED for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), due to Mr. Siddle‘s ineligibility to be a debtor under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code“) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1).

It is incumbent upon counsel to review credit counseling certificates and Part 5 of the petition and determine whether the debtor has complied with the clear eligibility requirements of § 109(h) prior to filing a bankruptcy petition. Failure to do so in the future may result in the Court sua sponte setting a hearing to determine whether the specific conduct of counsel is a violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule“) 9011 and whether sanctions are appropriate, including disgorgement of attorney fees and the refund of any filing fees and other related expenses.

Mr. Harvey relayed to the Court that he had intended to assist Mr. Siddle in filing another case without charging another $1,000 fee, as he had charged for this case, but that he believed he should be able to charge for the filing fee of $338 for a second case, such that his fee for two cases was not reduced to $662. Given that this is the first instance to come before the Court in which Mr. Harvey filed a chapter 7 case without a credit counseling certificate, that Mr. Harvey appeared at the Show Cause Hearing to explain the situation and stands ready to assist Mr. Siddle, and given that this Court‘s prior Show Cause Order stated that the Court would “review whether any fees paid by the Debtor to Mr. Harvey exceed the reasonable value of any services provided by Mr. Harvey to the Debtor” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017(a) (Doc. 16 at 3), the Court determined that requiring Mr. Harvey to either refund the $1,000 paid by Mr. Siddle to Mr. Harvey for this case (Doc. 1 at 39) so that he can engage another attorney to file a new case or to apply the same attorney fee to Mr. Harvey filing another case for Mr. Siddle is the appropriate outcome, and is consistent with other cases in which the Court has determined that dismissal of the case was due to an error by counsel.

Nothing in this order is intended to require that Mr. Siddle retain Mr. Harvey to file any future bankruptcy case. In the event that the Debtor does not retain Mr. Harvey to file another bankruptcy case, however, Mr. Harvey shall refund the prepetition $1,000 retainer paid to him by the Debtor by not later than July 24, 2026. Further, Mr. Harvey shall, not later than July 31, 2026, file a statement in this case advising the Court whether he has been retained to file another bankruptcy case for the Debtor and, in the event Mr. Harvey is not so retained, shall include documentary evidence of the required refund, setting forth the exact amount returned to the Debtor and by what method. Any such documentary evidence shall be appropriately redacted in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 9037 and this Court‘s ECF Procedure 13, removing or concealing any personal identifiers, including social security numbers and financial account numbers.

Nothing in this Order prevents the Debtor from filing a new bankruptcy case in appropriate circumstances or from using the Certificate of Counseling (Doc. 14) that he filed in this case on May 8, 2026, which was issued on March 26, 2026, to show his compliance with the credit counseling requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1) in a future case that is filed on or before September 22, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Copies to:

Default List Plus:

Pamela Arndt, DOJ-Ust, 200 North High Street, Suite 309, Columbus, OH 43215 (Counsel for the United States Trustee)

Tyson A. Crist

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Notes

1
Mr. Harvey indicated his client was very anxious to file his case on March 26, 2026, because of a garnishment.
2
Mr. Harvey filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b) based upon a debtor‘s “absolute right to dismiss.” However, this Bankruptcy Code section does not apply in a chapter 7 case such that the Court denied that Motion to Dismiss through the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5), Without Prejudice (Doc. 10).
3
As explained in Sultan, the origin of this debate is from a different, earlier debate about whether a debtor could complete their credit briefing on the same day that the petition was filed, a dispute that arose even when the briefing was completed pre-petition. 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 20, at *2-3. The original iteration of § 109(h)(3) required the credit briefing “during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3) (emphasis added) (as enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005). However, this language led to a spirited debate about whether the briefing needed to be completed the day before the petition was filed. 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 20, at *2-3. Congress attempted to solve this problem by changing the language in a 2010 amendment to “ending on the date of filing of the petition.” Id. Alas, this change just led to a new debate concerning the acceptability of a same-day post-petition credit briefing. But the Court finds that the expressed purpose of the prepetition briefing was to help debtors make an “informed choice” and consider non-bankruptcy alternatives. Id. at *5 (quoting Michael D. Sousa, Just Punch My Bankruptcy Ticket: A Qualitative Study of Mandatory Debtor Financial Education, 97 Marq. L. Rev. 391, 398 (2013) (“As for the pre-filing credit counseling course, Congress‘s mission was to have prospective debtors understand the potential alternatives to filing for bankruptcy relief with the goal of having a significant portion of them settle their debt obligations outside of the bankruptcy system.“)). Obviously, for certain debtors there really is no choice, and for the majority of debtors the briefing does not appear to make any difference.