Lydia Wilson

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
LYDIA WILSON, 	No. 11-10683
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss
_________________
On February 25, 2011, attorney Bram Dresden filed a Chapter 7 petition on behalf of debtor
Lydia Wilson, who had been planning a bankruptcy filing with Dresden for several months. Wilson
had obtained her credit counseling certificate on February 11, 2011.
On February 26, Dresden sent Wilson an email stating, “Your bankruptcy has been filed. The
Case # is 11-10683.” The email went on to instruct Wilson where and when to appear for her meeting
of creditors.
On February 28, Wilson sent an email to Dresden beginning, “Thanks for letting me know.”
Her email went on to ask several questions regarding the bankruptcy, the hearing and the address of
the bankruptcy court. She also asked about the balance of her fees due to Dresden, who responded that
she had a balance due of $1,000.00, which “can be paid at any time before the Hearing on April 6th
.”
On March 7, 2001, Wilson obtained a Certificate of Debtor Education necessary for her to
receive her Chapter 7 discharge. She also wrote to a creditor who had cancelled her credit card in
which she referred to “my filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy action.”
On March 18, 2011, the Chapter 7 Trustee made an unannounced visit to Wilson’s jewelry
store. Wilson became agitated that her business was involved in her bankruptcy, even though she
1
Entered on Docket
May 03, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-10683 Doc# 36 Filed: 05/03/11 Entered: 05/03/11 11:39:51 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
operated it as a sole proprietorship, as Dresden had evidently told her otherwise. Dresden then sent her
to a new attorney, who has filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that she never signed the
bankruptcy petition. The Trustee objects.
In a display of pretended befuddlement intended to excuse his conduct, Dresden testified that
he is a simple practitioner and that he became confused and pushed the wrong key on his computer and
filed Wilson’s bankruptcy by mistake. The court does not believe a word of this testimony, and
believes it was concocted in order to undo what appears to be gross malpractice. 1 Dresden made no
attempt to contact the court to undo his mistake, as all attorneys are instructed to do in the training
Dresden admits he received. He sent an email to Wilson right after the filing telling her the case
number. He even asked Wilson for the balance of his fees. His conduct and the documentary evidence
completely belie his assertion that the filing was a mistake.
Even if the court bought Dresden’s testimony that he filed the petition by mistake, Wilson has
clearly ratified the petition by her conduct. Ratification is the voluntary election by a person to adopt
in some manner as his own an act which was purportedly done on his behalf by another person, the
effect of which, as to some or all persons, is to treat the act as if originally authorized by him.
Rakestraw v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal. 3d 67, 73 (1972). 	Rest.2d Agency, §§ 82, 83, 100. An unauthorized
bankruptcy filing may be ratified by the debtor’s subsequent conduct. Hager v. Gibson, 108 F.3d 35,
39-40 (4th Cir 1997), and cases therein cited. Any conduct manifesting an intent to treat an
unauthorized act as authorized, including failure to repudiate it, supports a finding of ratification.
Rayonier v. Polson, 400 F.2d 909, 915 (9th Cir. 1968).
Wilson takes the position, unsupported in the law as far as the court can see, that ratification
cannot be found where the debtor did not understand the ramifications of the act. She argues that
because she did not understand that her business was involved she could not have ratified the act of
1Among other things, Dresden seems to have failed to advise Wilson that unless UCC-1
financing statements have been filed, goods held by her on consignment may become property of the
bankruptcy estate pursuant to Cal. Commercial Code § 2326(2).
2
Case: 11-10683 Doc# 36 Filed: 05/03/11 Entered: 05/03/11 11:39:51 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
filing. The court disagrees, and finds that ratification goes only to the unauthorized act. To hold
otherwise would give every debtor an argument for dismissal if the bankruptcy does not proceed as
intended.
In conclusion, the court does not find Dresden’s testimony credible. However, even if it were
to believe his testimony the filing was ratified by Wilson herself. Accordingly, her motion will be
denied. Counsel for the Trustee shall submit an appropriate form of order.
Dated: May 3, 2011
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
3
Case: 11-10683 Doc# 36 Filed: 05/03/11 Entered: 05/03/11 11:39:51 Page 3 of 3