Jose Migale Serbantez

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
_______________________
In re:
JOSE MIGALE SERBANTEZ,
Debtor.
_____________________________________/
Case No. 25-03345-swd
Chapter 7
Hon. Scott W. Dales
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
PRESENT: 	HONORABLE SCOTT W. DALES
Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 21, 2025, pro se debtor Jose Migale Serbantez (the "Debtor") filed his
chapter 7 voluntary petition (ECF No. 1, the "Petition"). Shortly after, the Clerk issued a Notice
of Filing(s) Due (ECF No. 7, the "Notice"), stating that the Debtor had until December 5, 2025, to
file Schedules A/B-J, a Summary of Assets and Liabilities, and verification of matrix along with
other required documentation. 	See Notice at p. 2. 	After the Debtor missed the December 5
deadline, the United States Trustee filed his Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10, the "Motion"), which
the court set for hearing on January 14, 2026, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The court also scheduled
a hearing to consider the Debtor's in forma pauperis or "IFP" application for waiver of the chapter
7 filing fee (ECF No. 4, the "IFP Application").
At the hearing, Kenneth G. Lau, Esq., appeared for the United States Trustee; the Debtor
did not appear.
With respect to dismissal, the United States Trustee urged the court to grant the Motion
under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), after enumerating the many case-initiating documents the Debtor
Case:25-03345-swd Doc #:15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 1 of 6

neglected to file.1 When the court responded that the case was probably dismissed by operation
of law under § 521(i)(1) for the same reasons already, counsel nevertheless reiterated his request
for an order under § 707(a). After discussing with counsel the ramifications of automatic dismissal
under § 521(i)(1) versus dismissal for cause under § 707(a), the court then took the matter under
advisement.
The court finds that, because the Debtor did not file the required documentation under §
521(a)(1) within forty-five days of the petition date or obtain an extension of the statutory deadline
before that time, the case was "automatically dismissed" – by operation of law – on the forty-sixth
day under § 521(i)(1), rendering the Motion moot.
Although the dismissal does not render the IFP Application moot – the court could still
provide meaningful relief from the burden of paying the filing fee – the Debtor did not appear at
the hearing to address the court's doubts about his eligibility, so the court will deny the IFP
Application on the merits.
II. ANALYSIS
1. 	Automatic Dismissal Under § 521(i)(1)
The court's analysis begins with the statutory text. Uncomfortably grafted onto the
Bankruptcy Code in 2005 as a part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act ("BAPCPA"), § 521(i)(1) provides as follows:
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (4) and notwithstanding section 707(a), if an
individual debtor in a voluntary case under chapter 7 or 13 fails to file all of the
information required under subsection (a)(1) within 45 days after the date of the
filing of the petition, the case shall be automatically dismissed effective on the 46th
day after the date of the filing of the petition.
1 References to "Bankruptcy Code" or to specific statutory sections are to 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
Case:25-03345-swd Doc #:15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 2 of 6

11 U.S.C. § 521(i)(1) (emphasis added).
As Judge Crist recently found, in harmony with other bankruptcy courts within the Sixth
Circuit, 	§ 	521(i)(1) 	operates 	automatically 	to 	dismiss 	a 	consumer 	case 	without 	judicial
involvement on the forty-sixth day after the petition date, subject to possible extension and an
equitable exception not present in the current case, if a debtor fails to file the documents listed in
§ 521(a)(1). See In re Vaughan, Case No. 25-31806, 2026 WL 21050, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio
Jan. 2, 2026) (finding that § 521(i)(1) requires automatic dismissal); see also Simon v. Amir (In re
Amir), 436 B.R. 1, 25 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2010) (finding that bankruptcy courts may only bypass §
521(i)(1)'s automatic dismissal requirement to prevent an abuse of the bankruptcy process).
Therefore, when the Debtor failed to file his necessary documentation by January 5, 2026, the
Bankruptcy Code automatically dismissed his case on January 6, 2026.
Although the United States Trustee advocates for dismissal under § 707(a), the argument
cannot withstand the "notwithstanding" clause within § 521(i)(1), which subjugates § 707(a) to the
automatic dismissal. 	By using the word "notwithstanding" immediately before § 707(a) in the
statute, Congress employed a common statutory device to signal that the automatic dismissal takes
effect despite the operation of the subordinated section. 	Cf., Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v.
Tucker, 621 F.3d 460, 464 (6th Cir. 2010) ("[within the Bankruptcy Code] notwithstanding is
defined as 'without prevention or obstruction from or by' or 'in spite of.') (quoting Webster's Third
New International Dictionary 1545 (1981)). 	Although § 707(a) was relevant when the United
States Trustee first filed his Motion, it ceased to control by the time of the hearing, after the
automatic dismissal took effect under § 521(i)(1). Put simply, the automatic dismissal mooted the
Motion to the extent it sought to end this case. 	Given the passage of time – and the Debtor's
Case:25-03345-swd Doc #:15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 3 of 6

inaction – granting the Motion at this point would add nothing to the relief that the Bankruptcy
Code has already, albeit automatically, granted.
The only lingering question is how to accurately reflect the case's automatic dismissal on
the record. 	For the sake of the record, today's decision will declare that the Debtor's case was
automatically dismissed on January 6, 2026.2
2. 	In Forma Pauperis Application
At the hearing, the court also considered the Debtor's IFP Application, albeit without input
from the Debtor who, as noted above, failed to appear. Although the court suggested on the record
that dismissal might render the Application moot, on reflection, the court concludes otherwise.
Despite the automatic dismissal, the Debtor remains obligated for the filing fees – the
United States could pursue collection – and the unpaid fees may have implications if the Debtor
files another bankruptcy petition.3 Granting the IFP Application would relieve the Debtor of these
burdens, so the court may still grant meaningful relief despite the dismissal. Nevertheless, on the
merits, the court will deny the IFP Application.
Generally, when a debtor commences a bankruptcy case the filing fees are due upon the
filing of the petition, and dismissal of the case does not excuse this obligation. See Fed. R. Bankr.
2 Because no one filed any post-dismissal motions under § 521(i)(2), the court has no occasion to venture into the
statutory quagmire of what Congress meant by making the automatic dismissal "subject to" that subjection, except to
note that some courts treat the procedure under § 521(i)(2) as akin to the process of obtaining a comfort order under
§ 362(c)(4)(A)(ii). See In re Vaughan, infra at 3. For now, the court avoids addressing the imponderable byproducts
of the slipshod drafting that pervades § 521(i).
3 Bankruptcy Fee Compendium III (June 1, 2014 Edition) (the "Fee Compendium"), Part I(1) ("The debtor's obligation
to pay the filing fees is unchanged by a dismissal."). Moreover, some courts treat unpaid filing fees in a prior case as
cause to dismiss under § 707(a)(2). In re Carter, 660 B.R. 383, 389 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2024). The unpaid fees may
also adversely affect a later court's decision to permit the Debtor to pay fees (for a new case) in installments. Cf. Fee
Compendium at Part B(1)(C)(4)(c) ("the court may consider the debtor's default in deciding whether to allow the
debtor again to pay the filing fee in installments."). And, naturally, the United States could pursue collection and file
a claim for unpaid fees in any future bankruptcy case the Debtor might file.
Case:25-03345-swd Doc #:15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 4 of 6

P. 1006(a) ("every petition must be accompanied by the filing fee"); supra n. 3. The bankruptcy
court, however, can choose to waive the filing fees in an individual chapter 7 case "if the court
determines that such individual has income less than 150 percent of the income official poverty
line...as defined by the Office of Management and Budget," and is unable to pay the fees in
installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(1).
The IFP Application, which the Debtor signed under penalty of perjury, stated that he earns
$4,983.00 each month (or $59,796.00 annually) to support his one-person household. 	See IFP
Application at line 2. According to the Office of Management and Budget's poverty guidelines
for 2025, 150 percent of the poverty line in Michigan for a single-person household is $23,475.00.
See U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2025 Poverty Guidelines, 2025 Poverty
Guidelines Computations.
Although the Debtor reports that he earns nearly twice the suggested limit – suggesting
ineligibility for a waiver – the court scheduled a hearing because the IFP Application also recites
that he supports two minor children and, without the benefit of Schedule J, the court could not
verify that he accurately listed his "take-home pay" (and therefore his seeming ineligibility).
Moreover, even if the Debtor were sufficiently impecunious, the court must also consider his
ability to pay the fee in installments, another issue requiring information from Schedule J which
the court intended to discuss at the hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(1).
The Debtor, however, did not appear at the hearing or file complete schedules, so he gives
the court no reason in the record for exercising its discretion to waive the filing fees. The income
that the Debtor reported on the IFP Application disqualifies him for relief under 28 U.S.C. §
1930(f), so the court need not consider his capacity to pay in installments. He must pay the fees
in full, notwithstanding dismissal.
Case:25-03345-swd Doc #:15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 5 of 6

For these reasons, because the IFP Application is not moot and the Debtor does not meet
the requirements for an in forma pauperis waiver, the court will deny it on the merits.
III. ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States Trustee's Motion
(ECF No. 10) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IFP Application (ECF No. 4) is DENIED on the
merits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum of
Decision and Order pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9022 and LBR 5005‐4 upon the Debtor, April
Hulst, Esq., chapter 7 trustee, and the United States Trustee.
END OF ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 20, 2026
Case:25-03345-swd Doc #:15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 6 of 6