In re Tulper

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Grantham

    617 B.R. 344 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Receiving an exemption, therefore, requires the debtor to clear a high bar – a total physical or mental disability – and courts have been reluctant to grant exemptions without strong evidence.In re Tulper, 345 B.R. 322, 326 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006) (stating that exemptions under section 109(h)(4) are "only available under limited circumstances" because the statute "is rigid in setting the bar for the granting of the exemption very high."); In re Smith, 2007 WL 5117434, *1, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4026, *3 (Bankr.

  2. In re Al-Ameen

    649 B.R. 62 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2022)

    The test requires a debtor to demonstrate that: "(1) the debtor is severely physically impaired; (2) the debtor has made a reasonable effort, despite the impairment, to participate in the prepetition credit counseling; and (3) the debtor is unable, because of the impairment, to participate meaningfully in an in person, telephone, or Internet briefing prepetition." In re Tulper, 345 B.R. 322, 326 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006) (stating that exemptions under § 109(h)(4) are "only available under limited circumstances" because the statute "is rigid in setting the bar for the granting of the exemption very high."); see also In re Smith, 2007 WL 5117434, at *1 (Bankr. D.S.C. Nov. 29, 2007) (finding that the Social Security Administration's decision that the debtor was eligible for disability benefits did not alone "prove physical disability so severe as to render Debtor unable to participate in a pre-petition credit counseling briefing"); In re Winston, No. 07-20593-D-13L, 2007 WL 1650926, at *1 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. June 6, 2007) ; In re Hall, 347 B.R. 532, 534-35 (Bankr. N.D. W.Va. 2006) (citing 2 Collier on Bankruptcy P 109.09[4] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds. 15th ed. rev. 2006)) ("The purpose of the exemption is to avoid ‘the absurd situation in which a debtor would be required to obtain a briefing even if suffering from Alzheimer's disease or some other disability that would make the briefing meaning

  3. In re Winston

    Case No. 07-20593-D-13L Docket Control No. NLE-1 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Third, the court must determine whether the debtor is unable, because of the disability, to meaningfully participate in an in-person, telephone, or internet pre-petition briefing. In re Tulper, 345 B.R. 322 (Dist. Col. 2006). For the purpose of this Memorandum the court will accept the debtor's assertion that she is disabled.