Trina Elaine Reddish

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
TRINA ELAINE REDDISH,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 08-00170
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN AND WAIVING FEE FOR FILING MOTION
The debtor has filed a letter dated December 24, 2008, in
which she requests the court to reopen her bankruptcy case. 	She
states that she cannot afford to pay the debt owed to her
mortgage company, Washington Mutual, and requests that the court
“include Washington Mutual in [her] bankruptcy case.” 	Treating
the letter as a motion to reopen, I will deny the motion, but I
will waive the fee for filing a motion to reopen.
I
Washington Mutual was duly listed as a creditor in the case.
Indeed, Washington Mutual evidenced its awareness of the case by
filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay. 	Accordingly,
by reason of 11 U.S.C. § 727(b), the debtor’s discharge
discharges the debtor from all debts owed to Washington Mutual
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: January 09, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 7

1 	Although Washington Mutual’s claim theoretically could
fall within an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523, the
debtor does not point to any exception to discharge that
Washington Mutual has invoked, and none of the exceptions appear
to be applicable. 	Because the issue is not properly before me,
however, for the remainder of this decision I will only assume
without actually deciding the issue (and hence without precluding
Washington Mutual from showing to the contrary) that the debt was
not excepted from discharge.
2
“that arose before the date of the order for relief” (the date of
the filing of the debtor’s petition). 1 	Thus, Washington Mutual
was included in the debtor’s bankruptcy case (if, as seems
likely, the debtor’s concept of a creditor’s inclusion in a
bankruptcy case means that the creditor’s prepetition claim,
including unmatured interest thereon, is subject to the
discharge). 	Because Washington Mutual has already been
“included” in the case in that sense, the debtor’s motion is
unnecessary. 	Nothing further is required to make Washington
Mutual subject to the discharge.
II
The discharge gave rise to a discharge injunction under 11
U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) barring Washington Mutual from collecting its
claim “as a personal liability of the debtor.” 	The discharge
injunction does not bar Washington Mutual from enforcing its lien
against the debtor’s real property. 	But the discharge injunction
does bar Washington Mutual’s collecting the debt from the debtor
as a personal liability. 	The debtor apparently fears that
Washington Mutual will collect the debt from her, not just
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 7

3
foreclose on her real property.
A.
If, despite the discharge injunction being applicable to it,
Washington Mutual were to attempt to collect the debt from her as
a personal liability (for example, by pursuing a civil action to
recover a judgment for any deficiency existing after the
foreclosure sale), the debtor could bring a motion to hold
Washington Mutual in civil contempt in order to coerce it to
comply with the discharge injunction. 	No fee is charged for
filing a motion to reopen for the purpose of filing such a
motion. 	But the debtor has not alleged sufficient facts to
demonstrate that Washington Mutual is in fact pursuing the claim
against her as a personal liability. 	Until Washington Mutual is
actually taking a step in violation of the discharge injunction
by engaging in some act to collect the debt as a personal
liability of the debtor, there is no basis for pursuing a
contempt motion. 	A fear of such an act when no such act has been
committed does not suffice to justify pursuit of a contempt
motion.
B.
The debtor may also be attempting to obtain a determination
that the debt is dischargeable, and a motion to reopen for that
purpose similarly does not require a reopening fee. 	But such a
request must be pursued by way of an adversary proceeding, which
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 7

4
must be commenced by the filing of a complaint. 	Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 7001(6) and 7003. 	The debtor’s letter does not recite that
she wishes to pursue such an adversary proceeding. 	Moreover,
there is no suggestion that there is a dispute in that regard.
The debtor does not allege that Washington Mutual contends that
its claim is nondischargeable. 	Unless Washington Mutual is
taking the position that its claim somehow is excepted from
discharge, there is no reason to pursue a proceeding to determine
dischargeability.
III
The debtor apparently fears that the deficiency claim
arising after foreclosure will be substantial because Washington
Mutual refused to permit her to make a short sale of the property
that would have netted more to Washington Mutual than what it is
attempting to sell the property for after foreclosure. 	She has
submitted with her letter a realtor’s letter (with voluminous
attachments) describing the attempted short sale of the property.
I infer that she thinks that it would be unfair for Washington
Mutual to collect the debt from her because it spurned the short
sale that was in its best interest.
Unfairness of a creditor’s claim has no impact on whether a
creditor’s claim is discharged. 	If Washington Mutual is subject
to the discharge injunction, it is barred from collecting the
debt from the debtor, whether the debt is a fair debt or an
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 7

5
unfair debt, and the issue of unfairness is academic.
Moreover, if Washington Mutual were not subject to the
discharge injunction, a request to determine the issue of
unfairness would be a matter over which this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction as that issue is not an administrative matter
arising in the case, or a matter arising under the Bankruptcy
Code, or a matter whose adjudication is necessary to administer
the bankruptcy case. 	See Turner v. Ermiger (In re Turner), 724
F.2d 338 (2d Cir. 1983) (bankruptcy court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over cause of action that the debtor had exempted
from the estate).
The realtor’s letter and its attached exhibits are
voluminous and serve no purpose with respect to the issue of
whether the motion to reopen should be granted. 	Accordingly,
there is no reason to accept them for filing (and to permit them
unnecessarily to take up physical storage space in a bulky
filings folder). 	I will thus direct the clerk to return the
realtor’s letter and its attachments to the debtor.
IV
It is uncertain what relief the debtor’s letter actually
seeks, but she seems to be seeking relief related to her
discharge. 	No fee is required for filing a motion to reopen the
case to obtain such relief (specifically, no fee is required for
filing a motion to reopen in order to file a motion to hold a
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 7

6
creditor in contempt for violating the discharge injunction or to
file an adversary proceeding to determine that the debt was not
excepted from the debtor’s discharge). 	Although the debtor did
not expressly state that she seeks such relief, and the fee
therefore is arguably owed, I will waive the fee because her
principal goal appears to be to obtain clarification that
Washington Mutual’s claim is no longer owed by her by reason of
her discharge, a clarification that could only be obtained via a
contempt motion or a dischargeability complaint.
V
In accordance with the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the debtor’s letter, treated as a motion to
reopen, is DENIED without barring her from renewing her motion if
that proves necessary. 	It is further
ORDERED that the fee for filing a motion to reopen, if it
applies, is waived. 	It is further
ORDERED that the realtor’s letter and its attachments
submitted with the debtor’s letter are rejected for filing, and
the clerk shall transmit the realtor’s letter and its attachments
to the debtor by regular mail, and the clerk shall assure that a
docket entry is entered that reflects that those documents
(previously docketed as Docket Entry No. 43), have been rejected
for filing, and that Docket Entry No. 43 is modified accordingly.
[Signed and dated above.]
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 7

7	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Reddish (Trina Elaine) Order re Mtn to Reopen_v2.wpd
Copy to: Debtor.
Case 08-00170 Doc 44 Filed 01/12/09 Entered 01/12/09 09:10:30 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 7