Bankruptcy Case In Kansas

On October 13, 2006, Debtor obtained credit counseling from an agency approved by the U.S. Trustee to provide that counseling. She filed this bankruptcy petition on April 18, 2007, or 186 days later. The signature of the counselor on the actual Certificate of Counseling 2 is dated November 1, 2006, but it clearly states that the actual counseling was received on October 13, 2006.

Debtor forthrightly admits that she commenced this case more than 180 days after obtaining the credit counseling. Furthermore, she does not argue that she is statutorily exempted from participating in budget and credit counseling under the limited exceptions set forth in §109(h).3 Instead, Debtor argues that until she actually obtains the Certificate from the counselor, she should not be deemed to have “received” the counseling—i.e. that the
counseling should not be deemed received until at least the date the counselor signs the Certificate. She further argues that the Court should look past the statutory language, and decline to dismiss the case, on the basis that Congress really just intended for debtors to obtain credit counseling, and because she did in fact receive the counseling, albeit not withinthe statutory period, the delay is essentially “no harm no foul.”

Finally, Debtor requests this Court decline to dismiss the case pursuant to the reasoning contained in In re Manalad, 360 B.R. 288 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2007), arguing, among other things, that nothing in Title 11 of the United States Code establishes the remedy for failure to comply with the credit counseling requirements, while the remedy of dismissal is specifically provided for in otherb situations.

TOP OF THE PAGE

Find a Lawyer