In re Henderson, 06-40020ESS.

Decision Date17 January 2006
Docket NumberNo. 06-40020ESS.,06-40020ESS.
Citation339 B.R. 34
PartiesIn re Kathy HENDERSON, Debtor.
CourtU.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York

Lisa Milas, Islip, NY, for Debtor.

MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION TO OBTAIN BUDGET AND CREDIT COUNSELING AND ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TEN DAYS TO AMEND THE REQUEST

ELIZABETH S. STONG, Bankruptcy Judge.

On January 5, 2006 (the "Petition Date"), Kathy Henderson (the "Petitioner") filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). On that same day, the Petitioner also filed a Request for Thirty-Day Extension To File Credit Counseling Certificate (the "Request for Extension"). The Petitioner requests an extension of time to file a credit counseling certificate, indicating completion of the requirement to undergo credit counseling from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency and a copy of any debt repayment plan created as part of the credit counseling, on grounds that she "must get a good attorney to advise [her] of [her] rights." Request for Extension ¶ 1. Based on the entire record and for the reasons stated below, the Petitioner's Request for Extension is denied without prejudice, and the Petitioner is allowed ten days from the date of this Memorandum Decision to seek legal advice and to file with the Court an amended Request for Extension.

The Budget and Credit Counseling Requirement for Eligibility To Be an Individual Debtor

Section 109(h)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, added by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), Pub.L. No. 109-8, § 106(a) (2005), generally requires an individual to receive budget and credit counseling in order to be eligible to be a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. As amended, Section 109(h)(1) provides:

[A]n individual may not be a debtor under [the Bankruptcy Code] unless such individual has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in section 111(a) an individual or group briefing ... that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis.

11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1).

To implement this eligibility requirement, the Bankruptcy Code, as amended by BAPCPA, provides that an individual debtor must file with the court a certificate from the nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency as evidence of his or her compliance with Section 109(h)(1). As amended, Section 521(b) provides:

[A] debtor who is an individual shall file with court

(1) a certificate from the approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that provided the debtor services under section 109(h) describing the services provided to the debtor; and

(2) a copy of the debt repayment plan, if any, developed under section 109(h) through the approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency

. . . .

11 U.S.C. § 521(b).

The legislative history describes Congress's reasoning in establishing the new requirement of credit counseling in order for an individual to be eligible to be a debtor as follows:

Most importantly, [BAPCPA] requires debtors to participate in credit counseling programs before filing for bankruptcy relief (unless special circumstances do not permit such participation). The legislation's credit counseling provisions are intended to give consumers in financial distress an opportunity to learn about the consequences of bankruptcy — such as the potentially devastating effect it can have on their credit rating — before they decide to file for bankruptcy relief. H.R.Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 18 (2005), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2005, pp. 88, 104.

The Temporary Exemption from the Prepetition Credit Counseling Requirement

Section 109(h)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a temporary exemption from the requirement that an individual receive budget and credit counseling in order to be eligible to be a debtor. This section states:

(A) Subject to subparagraph (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 5-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and

(iii) is satisfactory to the court.

(B) With respect to a debtor, an exemption under subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply to that debtor on the date on which the debtor meets the requirements of paragraph (1), but in no case may the exemption apply to that debtor after the date that is 30 days after the debtor files a petition, except that the court, for cause, may order an additional 15 days.

11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h)(3)(A), (B). That is, Congress recognized that some individual debtors may face exigent circumstances that render them unable to comply with the budget and credit counseling eligibility requirement, and BAPCPA provides a thirty- or forty five-day "window" within which an individual debtor may obtain budget and credit counseling, file the required certificate, and become, nunc pro tunc, an eligible debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.1

The requirements for a temporary exemption established by Section 109(h)(3) are conjunctive, not disjunctive, and each must be satisfied by the putative debtor in order for the exemption to apply. See, e.g., In re Talib, 335 B.R. 417, 418-20 (Bankr. W.D.Mo.2005); In re Cleaver; 333 B.R. 430, 434-35 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005); In re Watson, 332 B.R. 740, 745-46 (Bankr. E.D.Va.2005); In re Hubbard, 332 B.R. 285, 288 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005).

Neither Section 109 of the Bankruptcy Code nor the Interim Bankruptcy Rules requires a putative debtor to serve his or her request for a temporary exemption from the budget and credit counseling eligibility requirement on parties in interest. See 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3); FED. R. BANKR. P. 1007(c) as amended by Interim Bankruptcy Rules. See also General Order 497 dated September 27, 2005, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York (adopting Interim Rules promulgated by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules).

Nor does BAPCPA or the Interim Bankruptcy Rules contemplate that a putative debtor's request for a temporary exemption will be considered at a hearing so that the putative debtor's statements are not tested in an adversary process or subject to cross-examination. See id.

A request for a temporary exemption is not signed under the penalties of perjury. See In re Talib, 335 B.R. at 420-21 (a putative debtor's "certification of exigent circumstances under § 109(h)(3) need not be made under penalty of perjury."). But like any other filing signed by an attorney or a party who is not represented by an attorney, it may not be presented for any improper purpose, and must have evidentiary support. See FED. R. BANKR. P. 9011(a), (b)(1), (b)(2). See also In re Talib, 335 B.R. at 420-21; In re Cleaver, 333 B.R. at 434 ("a certification is, at a minimum, a written statement that the signer affirms or attests to be true.") That is, the statements made by the putative debtor in a request for a temporary exemption should be, and will be presumed by the Court to be, truthful, accurate, and made in good faith.

The form of Request for Thirty-Day Extension To File Credit Counseling Certificate provided for the use of putative debtors in this district, which was filed by the Petitioner, calls for a putative debtor to describe the exigent circumstances that merit a waiver of the budget and credit counseling requirement and state that he or she requested budget and credit counseling services from an approved agency but was not able to obtain the services during the five-day period beginning on the date that the putative debtor made the request. See Request for Extension ¶¶ 1, 2. See also 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h)(3)(A)(i), (ii).

The Bankruptcy Code does not define the term "exigent." Black's Law Dictionary defines the term "exigent" as "[r]equiring immediate action or aid; urgent ." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 614 (8th ed.2004). A similar definition is set forth in the form of Request for Thirty-Day Extension To File Credit Counseling Certificate used by the Petitioner. See Petitioner's Request for Extention ("Exigent circumstances: `Situations that demand unusual or immediate action.' Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (West Publishing Co.1990)."). Another leading reference dictionary defines "exigent" as "requiring immediate aid or action." WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 435 (9th ed.1983). And a standard thesaurus offers "burdensome," "burning," "critical," and "demanding," as synonyms. ROGET'S II THE NEW THESAURUS 177 (office ed.1984). See Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320, 125 S.Ct. 1561, 1566-69, 161 L.Ed.2d 563 (2005) (consulting dictionaries to determine the common meaning of terms not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).

Several courts have identified circumstances that support a finding of exigent circumstances in reviewing a putative debtor's request for a temporary exemption from the budget and credit counseling eligibility requirement. In In re Childs, 335 B.R. 623 (Bankr.D.Md.2005), the court observed:

The standard for exigent circumstances set forth in the statute is minimal. It requires only that the debtor state the existence of some looming event that renders prepetition credit counseling to be infeasible. The standard is not one of "excusable neglect" that would require the Court to delve into the reasons why the exigent circumstances occurred.

In re Childs, 335 B.R. at 630. The court concluded that "exigent circumstances" were established by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • In re Manalad, LA 05-50112 VZ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Central District of California
    • January 25, 2007
    ...cases for lack of § 109(h) eligibility involved debtors who filed for relief under chapter 13. See for example In re Henderson, 339 B.R. 34 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2006) (the court dismissed the case of a pro se debtor who cited the lack of an attorney as exigent 80. According to a study reported Fe......
  • In re Hess, 06-10068.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Vermont
    • August 14, 2006
    ...counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis. 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1); see also In re Henderson, 339 B.R. 34, 37 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.2006). However, the requirement for pre-petition credit counseling is not absolute. Section 109(h) provides that, under certain e......
  • In re Ginsberg, 06-42821-608.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 13, 2006
    ...as the potentially devastating effect it can have on "their credit rating — before they decide to file for bankruptcy relief." In re Henderson, 339 B.R. 34, 36-37 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 109-31, pt.1, at 18 (2005), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 2005, pp. 88, However, an individual may receive a......
  • In re Mendez
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit
    • March 28, 2007
    ...on the date on which the debtor made that request." See e.g., In re Romero, 349 B.R. 616 (Bankr. N.D.Cal.2006); In re Henderson 339 B.R. 34 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2006); In re Childs, 335 B.R. 623 (Bankr.D.Md.2005). For "cause" shown, the debtor can obtain up to an additional fifteen days postpetit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Laura B. Bartell, from Debtors' Prisons to Prisoner Debtors: Credit Counseling for the Incarcerated
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 24-1, March 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...the meaning of the term "certification." Some courts required only a written statement signed by the debtor. See, e.g., In re Henderson, 339 B.R. 34, 38 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Graham, 336 B.R. 292, 296 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2005); In re Talib, 335 B.R. 417, 420-21 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2005); ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT