Toni F. Newman

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
TONI F. NEWMAN,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00689
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 2008, Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC (“Ford
Motor”) filed a Motion for Approval of Reaffirmation Agreement or
in the Alternative, for Entry of Order Confirming Termination of
Automatic Stay (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) No. 30), but failed to
provide parties in interest with a notice of opportunity to
object as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-(1)(b)(3).
Ford Motor failed to comply with the court’s electronic
deficiency notice issued on March 25, 2008, instructing Ford
Motor to file a notice of opportunity to object. 	In light of the
court’s subsequent Order to File Amended Reaffirmation Agreement
(D.E. No. 31, entered March 20, 2008), which struck the original
reaffirmation agreement, Ford Motor filed an Amended
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: May 01, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00689 Doc 37 Filed 05/02/08 Entered 05/02/08 09:39:32 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
Reaffirmation Agreement on April 10, 2008 (D.E. No. 35), and
presumably will renew its motion to apply to that amended
agreement. 	The court addresses the pending motion because it
seeks relief that Ford Motor might not seek in a renewed motion.
As this court held in In re Fields, 2007 WL 430587 (Bankr.
D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2007), a motion invoking 11 U.S.C. § 521 (a)(6) as
a basis for seeking an order confirming that the automatic stay
has terminated requires Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1 notice
served on the chapter 7 trustee and the debtor. 	But more
critically, § 521 (a)(6) does not apply here because the debtor
filed a reaffirmation agreement within the required 45-day
period. 	See In re Bond, 2007 WS 2258452 (Bankr. D.D.C. Aug. 6,
2007). 	The automatic stay will not terminate even if the court
disapproves the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 524
(m)(1).
As to the request to approve the reaffirmation agreement,
the 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A) approval requirement does not apply
here because the debtor was represented by counsel. 	Although 11
U.S.C. § 524(m)(1) requires the court to review the presumption
of hardship that has arisen under that provision, no order
approving the reaffirmation agreement is required unless the
court sets a hearing to consider disapproving the reaffirmation
agreement. 	In other words, the approval is not required if the
court fails to set a hearing within the 60-day period of § 524
Case 07-00689 Doc 37 Filed 05/02/08 Entered 05/02/08 09:39:32 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3
(m)(1) during which the presumption of undue hardship persists.
Ford Motor, however, may file a new motion seeking a declaration
regarding whether the court has decided not to disapprove the
reaffirmation agreement, but it could opt instead to await the
passage of 60 days after the filing of the reaffirmation
agreement. 	Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Ford Motor’s Motion for Approval of
Reaffirmation Agreement or in the Alternative, for Entry of Order
Confirmation Termination of Automatic Stay (D.E. No. 30) is
stricken without prejudice.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney;
Michael J. Klima, Jr., Esq.
8600 LaSalle Road
Suite 200
Towson, Maryland 21286-2025
Attorney for Ford Motor Credit
Company, LLC
Case 07-00689 Doc 37 Filed 05/02/08 Entered 05/02/08 09:39:32 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3