Caitlin Lee Straub

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
Caitlin Lee Straub,
Debtor.
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 25-31877
Chapter 7
Judge Crist
ORDER: (I) VACATING ORDER DISMISSING CASE (DOC. 23) PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b); (II) GRANTING AMENDED
APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHAPTER 7 FILING FEE WAIVED (DOC. 35); AND
(III) FOR ISSUANCE OF THE DEBTOR’S DISCHARGE
For the sake of efficiency, this Order deals with two main distinct, but closely related
matters, as well as Debtor’s entitlement to a chapter 7 discharge, as set forth and separated by the
headings below.
I. 	Debtor’s Letter (Doc. 29) Construed as a Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal
(Doc. 31)
First, this matter is before the Court on Caitlin Lee Straub’s (the “Debtor”) motion titled
“Letter to the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division” (Doc. 29),
construed by the Court pursuant to the January 26, 2026 order described below as a motion to
vacate (the “Motion to Vacate”) the Court’s prior Order of Dismissal Without the Entry of
Discharge (Doc. 23) (the “Order of Dismissal”), entered on November 17, 2025, pursuant to Rule
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 3:25-bk-31877 Doc 36 Filed 03/05/26 Entered 03/05/26 14:08:24 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 6

2
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable in this chapter 7 case by Rule 9024
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Order of Dismissal was based upon the
Debtor’s supposed failure to comply with the Court’s prior Order Regarding Deficient Filing by
Debtor(s) and Setting Seven (7) Day Deadline for Compliance; and Notice of Imminent Dismissal
[of] Case (Doc. 7), entered on September 18, 2025, which stated that the “[m]ailing list of creditors
and other parties in interest was not filed[.]” Notably, however, the Debtor, who filed this chapter
7 case pro se, had submitted the list of creditors and filed a Verification of Creditor List (Doc. 28)
on December 5, 2025.
As referenced above, on January 26, 2026, the Court entered an Order: (I) Construing
Debtors Letter (Doc. 29) as a Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Case (Doc. 23) Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b); (II) Providing 21-day Notice of the Deadline to Respond
to Debtor’s Pro Se Motion; and (III) Providing Notice That Debtor’s Unsigned Documents May
Be Stricken if Not Properly Signed and Re-filed in 21 Day (Doc. 31) (the “Order”), which set a
deadline of twenty-one (21) days after entry of the Court’s Order, or February 17, 2026,1 for any
party to respond to the Debtor’s Motion to Vacate and the same 21-day deadline for the Debtor to
file Schedules A/B – J accompanied by a Declaration About an Individual Debtor’s Schedules
containing the Debtor’s wet-ink signature; a Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly
Income; a Statement of Intention for Individuals Filing Under Chapter 7; a Statement of Exemption
from Presumption of Abuse Under 707(b)(2); and an Application to Have the Chapter 7 Filing Fee
Waived, also containing the Debtor’s wet-ink signature.
The Debtor filed all her forms on February 9, 2026, properly signed as instructed by the
Court’s Order. (See Docs. 33, 34, and 35.) And no objection was filed to the Debtor’s Motion to
Vacate, within the time set by the Order.
Although this case was dismissed for the failure to file information required under 11
U.S.C. § 521(a)(1) (Doc. 23), the Court is granting the Debtor’s Motion to Vacate for two reasons.
First and foremost, the dismissal in this case was the result of an administrative error by the Clerk
of Court’s office in not recognizing that the Debtor had, in fact, submitted the list of creditors.
1 Because Monday, February 16, 2026, was a “Legal Holiday” (Presidents’ Day a/k/a Washington’s Birthday), the
deadline was Tuesday, February 17, 2026, pursuant to the method of computing time set forth in Bankruptcy Rule
9006(a)(1). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(a)(1)(C) and (a)(6). Also, because the 21-day period ran from entry of the
Order, and not from service, Bankruptcy Rule 9006(f) did not apply.
Case 3:25-bk-31877 Doc 36 Filed 03/05/26 Entered 03/05/26 14:08:24 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 6

3
Upon review of the Motion to Vacate, the Court discovered that it had the required information all
along. In other words, this case was never subject to or appropriate for automatic dismissal
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(i). Second, this chapter 7 case was not automatically dismissed, in
which case the Clerk of Court simply sends a notice of the dismissal; rather, the Court had entered
an order of dismissal, such that there is an order to vacate. Accordingly, this case is distinguishable
from this Court’s prior decision denying a motion to vacate an automatic dismissal pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 521(i) in In re Vaughan, No. 25-31806, 2026 WL 21050, 2026 Bankr. LEXIS 7 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2026) (determining that the Court did not have discretion to vacate the automatic
dismissal of a case the occurred on the 46th day pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(i), in a case in which
there was no dispute that debtor’s counsel failed to file a necessary document after ample notice).
Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the Order Dismissing Debtor for Failure to
File Documents (Doc. 23), this chapter 7 case is hereby REINSTATED, and the Clerk of Court
shall administer this case to discharge and closing.
II. 	Application to Have the Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived
Second, this matter is before the Court on the Debtor’s Application to Have the Chapter 7
Filing Fee Waived (Doc. 35) (the “Amended Application”), filed on February 9, 2026. The Court
notes that her Amended Application was not just a signed copy of her original Application
(Doc. 5)2 filed on September 17, 2025; rather, she updated her income, expenses and property
information in items 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, and 15.
A waiver of the filing fee in a chapter 7 case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(1) and
procedures prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Whether to grant an
application for waiver of filing fee in a chapter 7 case involves a two-step analysis, as this Court
has previously noted. See In re Johnson, No. 25-30806 at 3, n.1 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Aug. 14, 2025),
(citing In re Barrick, 402 B.R. 39, 41 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008)). The first step is to determine
whether the Debtor’s “income is below 150% of the poverty line for the debtor’s family size,”
which is referred to as the “quantitative” step, and the second step is to determine whether the
Debtor is “unable to pay the filing fee in installments[,]” which is referred to as the “qualitative”
2 On September 18, 2025, the Clerk of Court issued a Notification of Deficiency (Doc. 8), directing the Debtor to file,
amongst other things, an amended Application to Have the Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived with the debtor’s signature.
Case 3:25-bk-31877 Doc 36 Filed 03/05/26 Entered 03/05/26 14:08:24 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 6

4
step. In re Barrick, 402 B.R. at 41 (citing In re Ortiz, No. 6:06-bk-00562-KSJ, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS
1226, 2006 WL 1594152, at *1 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. May 11, 2006)). The second step “requires an
analysis of the totality of the debtor’s circumstances.” In re Burr, 344 B.R. 234, 236 (Bankr.
W.D.N.Y. 2006).
Analyzing the quantitative step first, from the Court’s review, the Debtor’s average
monthly net income figure on her original Application (Doc. 5), item 2, which was $2,372, did not
include non-cash governmental assistance (health insurance and food stamps) that the Debtor
receives, in the amount of $300. Further, her family’s average monthly net income, net of
governmental assistance, increased by $612 to $2,984; however, that appears to be her gross
monthly income after reviewing both the unsigned and signed versions of her Statement of
Currently Monthly Income and Schedule I, as discussed below.
Looking at her original Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income (Doc. 1-1
at 58-59), Debtor listed total current monthly income of $2,730 (gross wages of $2,320, plus child
support of $410). And in her original (improperly signed) Schedule I (Doc. 1-1 at 40-41) she listed
monthly income, net of all deductions, of $2,370. Turning to her signed Chapter 7 Statement of
Your Current Monthly Income (Doc. 33 at 37-39), Debtor lists total current monthly income of
$2,984 (the same as her gross wages). And in her properly signed Schedule I (Doc. 33) filed on
February 9, 2026, Debtor lists combined monthly income, net of deductions, of $2,346, which is
$26 less than what she listed on her original Schedule I, $2,372. On both Schedule I’s she listed
about the same gross wages, $2,904 and $2,900, respectively, but she listed fewer deductions on
her recently signed Schedule I (Doc. 33 at 32) than before (decreasing from $944 to $554) and
appears to no longer receive $412 per month in child support, which she previously indicated
would end on January 6, 2026. See Sched. I (Doc. 1-1 at 41), item 13. All-in-all, it appears that
while she might not have done the math correctly each time, she has consistently listed gross wages
of around $2,900 and net monthly income of about $2,370. This is only about fifty percent (50%)
of 150% of the Health and Human Services Poverty Guideline amount for her family size of five
(5) for 2025, which is $4,706.25.3
3 The Debtor’s average monthly net income in her Amended Application ($2,984) is $1,722.25 less than 150% of the
poverty guideline for a family of five (5), which was in effect in 2025 ($4,706.25). See Dept. of Health and Human
Services’ chart of 2025 Poverty Guidelines: 48 Contiguous States (all states except Alaska and Hawaii):
Case 3:25-bk-31877 Doc 36 Filed 03/05/26 Entered 03/05/26 14:08:24 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 6

5
Turning to the second, qualitative step of the analysis, which entails a review of the
Debtor’s expenses and therefore her ability to pay the filing fee in installments, viewing the
Debtor’s original and Amended Applications (Docs. 5 and 35) and her unsigned and signed
Schedule J (Doc. 1-1 at 42-44 and Doc. 33 at 33-35), collectively, shows that she does not have
the ability. See In re Hayes, 581 B.R. 509, 515 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2018) (stating that “[w]hen
considering whether an individual debtor is able to pay her filing fee in installments, ‘a court must
naturally look first to the debtor’s expenses to determine whether the debtor has the ability to pay
the fee out of [her] income.’ ” (quoting In re Nuttall, 334 B.R. 921, 924 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2005))).
Further, although being represented by an attorney is not, by itself, a disqualifying factor, Debtor
did file this case pro se, which is consistent with the analysis that she does not have the ability to
pay. See, e.g., In re Donahue, 410 B.R. 751, 756 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2009).
While the Debtor may not have done all the calculations correctly, that appears to have
been an honest mistake, and the Court has enough information before it to reach the conclusion
that she does not currently have the ability to pay. See id. at 753 (comparing the Debtor’s Schedule
I to his Application, observing “that Debtor reported his gross income on his Application, rather
than his adjusted income” and concluding that Debtor was unable to pay the filing fee even though
his income and expenses suggested he had monthly net income of $24 which was “insufficient for
the required installment payments.”). Her original Application (Doc. 5) listed average monthly
expenses of $3,325. Her Amended Application (Doc. 35), however, listed average monthly
expenses of $2,289. Turning to her Schedules J, her original unsigned version (Doc. 1-1 at 42-44)
identified total monthly expenses of $3,325, whereas her recently signed version of Schedule J
(Doc. 33 at 33-35) listed monthly expenses of $1,700; however, it appears that she did not include
her monthly rent of $1,6254 in this calculation because when items 4 through 21 on Schedule J are
added up, the monthly expenses actually total $3,325. See Schedule J (Doc. 33 at 33-34). And this
is the amount of average monthly expenses she listed in her original Application (Doc. 5 at 2, item
6). As a result, it appears that on a monthly basis, after backing out her non-cash government
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed-guidelines-
2025.pdf.
4 In her Amended Application (Doc. 35), Debtor indicates that her monthly rent is $1,650 and that she currently does
not “even make enough money to pay my rent, and utilities . . . .” Am. App. at 1, item 5.
Case 3:25-bk-31877 Doc 36 Filed 03/05/26 Entered 03/05/26 14:08:24 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 6

6
assistance, Debtor may be short of being able to meet her expenses by up to ($955) ($2,370 –
$3,325).5
For the foregoing reasons, and with the Court noting that the Chapter 7 Trustee did not
object to the Debtor’s original Application and has not objected to the Amended Application,
which has now been pending for three (3) weeks, Debtor’s Application to Have the Chapter 7
Filing Fee Waived (Doc. 35) is hereby GRANTED, and the chapter 7 filing fee is hereby
WAIVED. The Court is guided by Bankruptcy Case Policies § 820.30(c)(1)(A) in making this
determination. See also “2025 Poverty Guidelines”, which were in effect when this case was filed:
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed
-guidelines-2025.pdf
III. 	Issuance of Discharge
The Court notes that it appears the Debtor has now complied with all applicable filing
requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules, and Local Bankruptcy Rules (Docs. 1,
15, 16, 33, 34, and 35), she attended the § 341(a) Meeting of Creditors on November 14, 2025,
and completed the financial management course. (Doc. 30.) Further, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed
his Report of No Distribution on November 14, 2025, and no objections to discharge were timely
filed, for which the deadline was January 13, 2026.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court may proceed to issue the Debtor’s discharge as soon as
practicable in accordance with its procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
All Creditors and Parties in Interest Plus,
Edward H. Cahill, Office of the US Trustee, 170 North High Street, Suite 200, Columbus, OH
43215-2417 (Assistant United States Trustee)
Nathan A. Wheatley, Office of the US Trustee, 170 North High Street, Suite 200, Columbus, OH
43215-2417 (Counsel for the United States Trustee)
5 The Court independently ran the calculations which confirmed the monthly expenses of $3,325, as would be shown
on Schedule J, but based on her current job paying $18.65 per hour, as stated in item 5 of her Amended Application,
working 52 weeks of 40 hours would result in maximum gross wages of $3,232.67. Even before taking out payroll
deductions, this does not create positive net monthly income in comparison to her monthly expenses.
Case 3:25-bk-31877 Doc 36 Filed 03/05/26 Entered 03/05/26 14:08:24 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 6