Emma Gene Jackson

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: 	:
:
EMMA GENE JACKSON 	: 	Case No. 05-22135PM
: 	Chapter 7
Debtor 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the court is a Reaffirmation Agreement and Order executed by the Debtor and
Citifinancial, Inc. The Agreement prepared by Citifinancial proposes that the Debtor pay
$11,753.42 and reaffirm the obligation to Citifinancial that is secured by a 1994 Mercury Sable
GS Sedan.
The vehicle has approximate mileage of 109,000. The most recent Kelley Blue Book
valuation of the subject property shows a trade-in value ranging from $590.00 for a vehicle in
fair condition to $1,050.00 for a vehicle in excellent condition. It appears that paying
$11,753.42 for this vehicle, together with an undisclosed rate of interest, does not meet the
standard found in § 524(c)(6)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code that the court find that this Agreement
is in the best interests of the Debtor, particularly in view of the possibility of her filing a motion
to redeem the vehicle and paying anywhere from $590.00 to $1,050.00 in cash and thus having
the lien of Citifinancial released.
The reaffirmation hearing for debtors not represented by counsel was created precisely to
deal with the instant situation where an avaricious creditor seeks to take undue advantage of an
unsophisticated debtor and to destroy completely the advantage of the bankruptcy discharge. Cf.
Arnold B. Cohen, Issues in Consumer Bankruptcy, 2 J. Bankr L. and Prac. 323, 325 (1993); 2
Date signed September 01, 2005
Entered: September 02, 2005 Case 05-22135 Doc 14 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 2

David G. Epstein, Steve H. Nickles and James J. White, Bankruptcy § 7-35 (1992). See In re
Kamps, 217 B.R. 836, 842-43 (BC C.D. Cal. 1998) (“The substantive and procedural conditions
for a valid reaffirmation agreement require that a bankruptcy court devote substantial attention to
such an agreement by a debtor who is unrepresented by counsel .... [so as] to make sure that the
agreement has not been infected with fraud or false information or promises by the creditor.”); In
re Nidiver, 217 B.R. 581 (BC D. Neb. 1998) (Where debtor is not represented by counsel,
reaffirmation agreements that involve substantial detriment to debtor with no corresponding
benefit should not be approved by the court.); In re Latanowich, 207 B.R. 326, 335 (BC D.
Mass. 1997) (Section 524(c)(6)(a) “protects debtors from reaffirming debts improvidently-
...because they fall victim to overreaching creditors, or for whatever reason - by interposing the
independent review and judgment of the court.”).
An appropriate order will be entered.
cc:
Emma Gene Jackson, 1475 W. Key Parkway, #C-1, Frederick, MD 21702
Citifinancial, Inc.
(1) Attn: Denise P. Spindle, Branch Mgr., 1014 W. Patrick Street, Frederick, MD 21702
(2) c/o Corporation Trust Incorporated, 300 East Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21202
Steven H. Greenfeld, Trustee, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200, Bethesda, Md. 20814
End of Memorandum
Case 05-22135 Doc 14 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2