Opinion
Case No. 01-01808.
July 1, 2008
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEBTOR'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The debtor has filed a motion to reopen this bankruptcy case for purposes of clarifying the order of dismissal (Docket Entry ("DE") No. 95, filed June 26, 2008). Specifically, the debtor is concerned that a prospective employer has misconstrued the order of dismissal in this case as signifying that the case had a negative outcome, and the employer allegedly takes the position that a positive outcome would instead be reflected by the word "discharged." The court takes no view on the question of whether the dismissal of this case signifies a negative or a positive outcome, and it is not the province of this court to impose its subjective view, one way or the other, upon a prospective employer of the debtor. The court does, however, observe that individual chapter 13 bankruptcy cases are frequently dismissed without entry of a discharge for a variety of reasons. In some cases, due to a loss of income or a change in circumstances, the debtor becomes unable to make the required plan payments and is not permitted to remain a debtor under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. In other cases, the debtor determines that his financial circumstances have improved such that he no longer requires the protection of bankruptcy and he voluntarily dismisses his own case. In still other cases, the court may dismiss the case because the debtor neglects to comply with his statutory obligations or he proves, in some other regard, to be ineligible to be a debtor in bankruptcy. Whatever the reason for dismissal, however, if no discharge was granted in the case, the debtor remains obligated to pay any and all remaining pre- and post-petition debts outside of bankruptcy.
The debtor does not contend that she did or should have received a discharge in this case. With a few limited exceptions of no relevance here, a discharge is issued to a chapter 13 debtor only after completion of a confirmed plan. There is no dispute that this case was dismissed before the successful completion of a confirmed plan and prior to and without the granting of a discharge.
The debtor's motion indicates that she moved to voluntarily dismiss this case as the result of a settlement arrived at with the defendants in Brown v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 02-10032 (Bankr. D.D.C.). The docket in that adversary proceeding reflects that the debtor reached a settlement at least with respect to the defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (DE No. 88). The court has no opinion on what, if any, impact this had on the debtor's decision to seek voluntary dismissal of her bankruptcy case, and it likewise has no opinion as to what significance the debtor's prospective employer should place on such a factor if that was, indeed, the reason the debtor requested dismissal of her case.
In the instant case, the chapter 13 trustee moved for dismissal with prejudice based upon an alleged material default in plan payments (DE No. 73, filed August 2, 2004). The debtor having failed to respond, the court granted the motion as unopposed and entered an order of dismissal accordingly (DE No. 76, entered September 3, 2004). Although the debtor originally sought to have that order of dismissal vacated based upon a lack of notice of the motion to dismiss (DE No. 78, filed September 24, 2004), the debtor subsequently withdrew her motion to vacate and requested instead that her case be voluntarily dismissed (DE No. 90, entered November 19, 2004). The debtor having withdrawn her motion to vacate, the court entered an order denying the debtor's motion to vacate and permitting the September 3, 2004 order of dismissal to stand (DE No. 92, entered November 22, 2004). The foregoing is merely an overview of how this case came to a close, and the court will not attempt to interpret or judge the significance of this sequence of events for the debtor's prospective employer. The debtor's prospective employer is free, within the confines of the law, to set its own hiring criteria, and if that prospective employer believes it reflects poorly on the debtor that her bankruptcy case was dismissed without entry of an order discharging the debtor, it is not for this court to agree or disagree with that position. It is thus
That the dismissal was with prejudice merely signifies that the debtor was barred from filing a new bankruptcy case for a period of 180 days after entry of the order of dismissal.
ORDERED that the debtor's request for verification that the term dismissal is not intended as derogatory is DENIED because it asks the court to make a subjective rather than an objective determination regarding the events that transpired in this case. It is further
ORDERED that the court will GRANT the debtor's motion to reopen for the limited purpose of permitting the debtor to file and for the court to dispose of the debtor's request for clarification of the dismissal order in this case. It is further
ORDERED that the reopening fee that is required upon the filing of a motion to reopen is waived in this case to the limited extent that the case needed to be reopened for the debtor to file and for the court to dispose of the motion seeking clarification of the dismissal order. To the extent the debtor wishes to make additional filings or seek further relief from the court, the debtor shall be required to pay the filing fee in full.
The Memorandum Decision and Order below is hereby signed.