Wednesday, November 16, 2005

No Excusing Credit Counseling Requirements

We earlier mentioned a Virginia case which denied a request for extension of time to comply with the new credit counseling requirements where the debtor did not certify that he had sought and been unable to receive counseling before filing. In re Watson, 332 BR 740 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 11/3/05). Debtors are faring no better elsewhere. A Missouri court has likewise concluded that the certification of an unfulfilled request is essential for obtaining an extension, regardless of the exigent circumstances otherwise demonstrated. In re Gee, 332 B.R. 602 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 10/26/05). Judge Dow in Gee held that such a certification is a "plainly stated requirement" for granting a waiver and politely declined the Debtor's invitation to rewrite the statute.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Judge A Thomas Small in the Eastern District of North Carolina is taking a different approach. In re Burt (05-6073-5-ATS, 11/8/05), the debtor meant to file her petition before the new law took effect. The court allowed the debtor to obtain credit counseling after the filing, without a showing of exigent circumstances and a showing that she was unable to obtain credit counseling within 5 days of request because the court found that the debtor was acting in good faith in trying to comply with the requirements of BAPCPA after realizing her mistake in the filing date.