Venix Joachim, Sr.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
VENIX JOACHIM, SR.,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-00387
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION
The court directed the debtor to show cause why this case
ought not be dismissed based on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1). 	The
debtor admits that his Exhibit D to the petition erroneously
stated that he had obtained the credit counseling required by
§ 109(h)(1). 	He states that he misunderstood the requirement
under § 109(h)(1), and that this is why he failed to obtain such
counseling within 180 days of the commencement of his case.
Section 109(h) does not permit the court to excuse a failure to
comply with § 109(h)(1) based on a debtor’s having misunderstood
the requirement.
The debtor’s Exhibit D did not invoke the exception of 11
U.S.C. § 109(h)(3) to the requirements of § 109(h)(1), but in his
response to the order to show cause he states:
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: June 30, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-00387 Doc 28 Filed 06/30/09 Entered 06/30/09 11:12:15 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
I request permission to submit a certification that I
endured exigent circumstances. 	What are the exigent
circumstances? 	I requested credit counseling services,
but did not received within 5 days of the request. 	Is
this satisfactory to the court?
The debtor was required to invoke § 109(h)(3) on Exhibit D if he
wished to invoke that provision. 	His Exhibit D and the balance
of his response to the order to show cause show that the debtor
thought that he indeed had obtained credit counseling, not that
he had unsuccessfully requested credit counseling shortly before
filing his case. 	Moreover, he does not state any exigent
circumstances, and instead seems to be asking what types of
exigent circumstances could be invoked to justify an exception
under § 109(h)(3). 	To the extent that the response to the order
to show cause is attempting to invoke § 109(h)(3), it fails to
certify facts that are satisfactory to the court as required by
§ 109(h)(3)(iii), and thus the debtor has not shown that
§ 109(h)(3) applies. 	The debtor’s opportunity to invoke that
provision was on Exhibit D, or, at the latest, in response to the
order to show cause.
Because § 109(h)(1) barred the filing of this case, an order
follows dismissing the case without barring the debtor from
filing a new case.
Case 09-00387 Doc 28 Filed 06/30/09 Entered 06/30/09 11:12:15 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\TEEL\Laura\ORDERS\109(h)\Memorandum Decision_109(h)_failure to understand requirement_Joachim.wpd
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Debtor; Chapter 7 Trustee; Office of United States Trustee.
Case 09-00387 Doc 28 Filed 06/30/09 Entered 06/30/09 11:12:15 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3