Landon Terrell Hardiman and Daffney Merritt Hardiman

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
IN RE:
LANDON TERRELL HARDIMAN, JR.
DAFFNEY MERRITT HARDIMAN
DEBTORS
CASE NO.
07-00954-5-ATS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The matter before the court is the motion for reconsideration filed by Coastal Federal Credit
Union (“Coastal”). 	Coastal seeks reconsideration of the “Order Regarding Reaffirmation
Agreement” entered by this court on August, 15, 2007. A hearing took place in Raleigh, North
Carolina on October 31, 2007.
Landon Terrell Hardiman, Jr. and Daffney Merritt Hardiman filed a petition for relief under
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on May 2, 2007. 	At the same time, the debtors filed their
Schedules I, J, and D. The debtors’ Schedule I indicated a combined average monthly income of
$4,454.93 and their Schedule J showed average monthly expenses of $5,689, resulting in a negative
figure for net monthly income (-$1,234.07). Among their assets, the debtors listed a 2005 Chevrolet
Equinox, which they valued at $9,000. Coastal holds a lien on the vehicle pursuant to an installment
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 20 day of November, 2007.
________________________________________
A. Thomas Small
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 1 of 10

2
sales contract. In their Schedule D, the debtors list the amount of Coastal’s claim at $21,145.00.
Coastal did not file a proof of claim in this case. The debtors also filed a statement of intention in
which they indicated that the debt to Coastal would be reaffirmed.
On June 25, 2007, the debtors signed a reaffirmation agreement (the “Agreement”) prepared
by Coastal, reaffirming their debt in the amount of $20,048.69. Under the Agreement, the simple
interest rate is 5.5%, and the monthly payments are $479.69 per month, plus all accrued unpaid
interest, late charges, etc. called for under the sales contract. 	In Part D of the Agreement (the
“Debtor’s Statement in Support of Reaffirmation”), the debtors state that their monthly income is
$3,925 and their monthly expenses total $2,535, leaving $1,390 to make the required monthly
payments. In Part E (the “Motion for Court Approval”), the debtors state that they are able to make
the payments because of the discharge of personal debt resulting from their bankruptcy filing. The
debtors also note that they have three children and that the vehicle is their only reliable means of
transportation. 	Though the debtors are represented by counsel in their bankruptcy case, their
attorney did not sign the Agreement and the debtors indicated in Part E that they were not
represented during the course of negotiation of the Agreement.
A hearing took place on August 15, 2007, to consider whether to approve the reaffirmation
agreement, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 524(d) when a debtor has not been represented by an attorney
during the course of negotiating the agreement. At the hearing, the debtors’ counsel stated that the
debtors were concerned about showing sufficient income in order to keep the vehicle, and although
Part D of the Agreement showed positive monthly net income, the petition indicated a monthly
deficit in excess of $1,200. The debtors’ counsel also represented to the court that the value of the
vehicle is approximately $9,000, the amount owed is over $20,000, and the sales contract contains
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 2 of 10

3
a “bankruptcy default clause” (or “ipso facto clause”), which allows Coastal to declare a default
based solely on the fact that the debtors filed for bankruptcy protection. When asked if they could
continue to make the payments on the vehicle, the debtors stated that it would be difficult some
months, but that they thought they could pay on time. The court noted the substantial difference in
the value of the vehicle and the amount of the outstanding balance owed, as well as the
corresponding potential for a large deficiency if the debtors were unable to make the payments.
Because of the uncertainty of the debtors’ ability to pay and the size of the potential deficiency, the
court disapproved the Agreement, finding that it would impose an undue hardship on the debtors and
that it was not in their best interest. 	However, the court held that because the Agreement was
disapproved through no fault of the debtors, Coastal would not have the benefits of 11 U.S.C. §§
521(d) and 362(h), and that Coastal could not repossess the vehicle or declare default based on the
debtors’ bankruptcy filing as long as the debtors remain current in their payments. Because notice
of the hearing may not have alerted Coastal to the possibility that the court would disapprove the
Agreement and limit Coastal’s actions under the sales contract, the court authorized a request for
reconsideration if filed within 10 days. The court’s order regarding the Agreement was entered on
August 15, 2007.
On August 24, 2007, Coastal filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order, later
followed by a memorandum of law supporting the motion. Coastal objects to the part of the court’s
decision that prohibits Coastal from exercising its rights under the ipso facto clause in the sales
contract. Coastal contends that the debtors are essentially receiving the benefits of the “retain and
pay” or “ride-through” option, which Coastal claims has been eliminated with respect to personal
property that serves as collateral for a secured debt. Coastal further argues that § 521(d) allows it
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 3 of 10

4
to exercise its rights under the ipso facto clause because the debtors failed to “reaffirm” the debt, in
that the court’s disapproval rendered the Agreement unenforceable. The debtors contend that §
521(d) has not been triggered because the debtors “entered into” an agreement as contemplated by
§§ 521(a)(2) and 362(h). The debtors maintain that they have done everything within their control
to perform their intent to reaffirm the debt and that the court’s approval or disapproval of an
agreement under § 524(c)(6)(A) is separate and distinct from the debtors’ performance. The court
agrees with the debtors.
The court’s analysis begins with an inquiry into whether the debtors fulfilled their initial
duties in connection with the debt to Coastal. Section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code imposes duties
on chapter 7 debtors when the debtor has debts secured by property of the estate. Section 521(a)(2)
provides, in pertinent part:
if an individual debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities includes debts which are
secured by property of the estate–
(A) within thirty days after the date of the filing of a petition under chapter 7 of
this title or on or before the date of the meeting of creditors, whichever is earlier
. . . the debtor shall file with the clerk a statement of his intention with respect to
the retention or surrender of such property and, if applicable, specifying that such
property is claimed as exempt, that the debtor intends to redeem such property,
or that the debtor intends to reaffirm debts secured by such property;
(B) within 30 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under
section 341(a) . . . the debtor shall perform his intention with respect to such
property, as specified by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; and
(C) nothing in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph shall alter the
debtor’s or trustee’s rights with regard to such property under this title, except
as provided in section 362(h)[.]
11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2). Section 362(h)(1) provides, in relevant part:
In a case in which the debtor is an individual, the stay . . . is terminated with respect
to personal property of the estate or of the debtor securing in whole or in part a
claim, . . . and such personal property shall no longer be property of the estate if the
debtor fails within the applicable time set by section 521(a)(2) –
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 4 of 10

1The “agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c)” referred to in subparagraph (A) is
described by § 524(c) as follows: “[a]n agreement between the holder of a claim and the debtor, the
consideration for which, in whole or in part, is based on a debt that is dischargeable in a case under
this title . . . ” 11 U.S.C. § 524(c). Section 524(c) goes on to provide that such an agreement is
enforceable under nonbankruptcy law, but only if certain requirements are met. Most relevant to
this matter is the requirement that, “in a case concerning an individual who was not represented by
an attorney during the course of negotiating an agreement under this subsection, the court approves
such agreement as– (i) not imposing an undue hardship on the debtor or a dependent of the debtor;
and (ii) in the best interest of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A).
5
(A) to file timely any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2)
with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the
debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining
such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section
722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c) applicable to
the debt secured by such personal property . . . and
(B) to take timely the action specified in such statement . . . .
11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1).1 It is undisputed that the debtors filed their statement of intention, indicating
their intent to reaffirm the debt to Coastal, in a timely manner in satisfaction of §§ 521(a)(2)(A) and
362(h)(1)(A). The heart of the dispute, however, is whether the debtors performed their intention
with respect to the debt – whether their actions, notwithstanding the court’s disapproval of the
Agreement, satisfied the requirements of §§ 521(a)(2)(B) and 362(h)(1)(B).
The question of whether the debtors fulfilled their duties with respect to the debt also arises
under § 521(a)(6), which provides, in relevant part:
[The debtor shall] in a case under chapter 7 of this title in which the debtor is an
individual, not retain possession of personal property as to which a creditor has an
allowed claim for the purchase price secured in whole or in part by an interest in
such personal property unless the debtor, not later than 45 days after the first meeting
of creditors under section 341(a), either –
(A) enters into an agreement with the creditor pursuant to section 524(c) with
respect to the claim secured by such property; or
(B) redeems such property from the security interest pursuant to section 722.
If the debtor fails to so act within the 45-day period referred to in paragraph (6), the
stay under section 362(a) is terminated with respect to the personal property of the
estate or of the debtor which is affected, such property shall no longer be property
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 5 of 10

2Prior to the enactment of BAPCPA, the Fourth Circuit, relying on precedent established in
Riggs Nat’l Bank v. Perry, held that a “default-on-filing clause in an installment loan contract was
unenforceable as a matter of law.” In re Belanger, 962 F.2d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 1992) (construing
Riggs Nat’l Bank v. Perry, 729 F.2d 982, 984-85 (4th Cir. 1984)).
6
of the estate, and the creditor may take whatever action as to such property as is
permitted by applicable nonbankruptcy law . . . .
11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(6). However, as this court previously noted in In re Donald, this provision will
rarely be applicable in chapter 7 cases, because “[c]reditors will rarely have an allowed claim for
the full purchase price of personal property, either because consumer purchases typically involve
a down payment or because where the full purchase price was financed, installment payments will
have been made prior to bankruptcy.” In re Donald, 343 B.R. 524, 537 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006).
In the present case, it appears from the sales contract that the debtors made a down payment, and
the debtors have paid down their original debt, so Coastal does not hold a claim for the “purchase
price.” Further, no proof of claim was filed and Coastal does not have an “allowed claim” in any
amount. Consequently, § 521(a)(6) is not applicable in this case.
The consequences of a debtor’s failure to surrender, redeem or reaffirm a debt can be severe.
Under § 362(h)(1), a debtor’s failure to act results in loss of the protection of the automatic stay.
11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1). In addition, § 521(d), as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), Pub. L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, § 305 (April 20,2005),
eliminates the Code’s restrictions on ipso facto clauses. 2 11 U.S.C. § 521(d). Section 521(d) now
provides:
If the debtor fails timely to take the action specified in subsection (a)(6) of this
section, or in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 362(h), with respect to property . . .
as to which a creditor holds a security interest . . . nothing in this title shall prevent
or limit the operation of a provision in the underlying lease or agreement that has the
effect of placing the debtor in default under such lease or agreement by reason of the
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 6 of 10

3It is undisputed that the debtors signed the Agreement within the time periods specified by
§§ 521 and 362.
7
occurrence, pendency, or existence of a proceeding under this title or the insolvency
of the debtor.
11 U.S.C. § 521(d). Thus, where a security agreement contains an ipso facto clause, a debtor’s
failure to comply with § 362(h) allows the creditor to take action under the default clause.
Coastal maintains that the debtors have not met the Code’s reaffirmation requirements,
thereby triggering § 521(d) and allowing Coastal to enforce its rights under the ipso facto clause in
the sales contract. Coastal argues that although the debtors intended to reaffirm the debt, signed the
Agreement, and sought the court’s approval, they have not “entered into” a reaffirmation agreement
because the court’s disapproval rendered the Agreement unenforceable. 	With no enforceable
reaffirmation agreement, Coastal’s view is that the debtors are now subject to the consequences of
losing the benefits of the automatic stay and potentially being in default under the sales contract
because they filed for bankruptcy protection. But the court disagrees. The Code does not require the
debtors to enter into a reaffirmation agreement and obtain court approval in order to comply with §§
521(a) and 362(h). The debtors have done everything within their control to reaffirm the debt: they
filed a statement of intention indicating their intent to reaffirm, signed the Agreement, and appeared
in court in support of their motion for approval of the Agreement. By signing the Agreement, the
debtors “entered into” an agreement to reaffirm the debt to Coastal. This constitutes “performing
their intention” to reaffirm, as required by § 521(a)(2)(B), as well as “entering into an agreement of
the kind specified in §524(c),” as required by § 362(h)(1). 3 Section 521(a)(2)(B) does not mandate
that debtors entirely consummate their stated intention within 30 days; rather a debtor must “take
steps to act on an intention to either retain or surrender.” In re Hinson, 352 B.R. 48, 50 (Bankr.
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 7 of 10

4In re Hinson involved different facts in that the creditor refused to sign the reaffirmation
agreement. 	However, the matter involved the issue at hand: whether a debtor has fulfilled the
requirements of § 521(a)(2) when the reaffirmation agreement is ultimately unenforceable but the
debtor has taken all necessary steps to reaffirm the debt.
8
E.D.N.C. 2006), quoting In re Price, 370 F.3d 362, 372 (3d Cir. 2004).4 See also In re Husain, 364
B.R. 211 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007) (holding that the debtors’ timely act of entering into mutually
satisfactory reaffirmation agreements with their creditors “must be viewed as sufficient to satisfy the
performance standards of § 521(a).”). The same logic applies to the requirements of § 362(h)(1) (that
a debtor timely file a statement of intention and perform the stated intention.) Where, as here, a
debtor fully complies with the requirements §§ 521(a) and 362(h), the remedies contained in §§
362(h)(1) and 521(d) are not triggered – the automatic stay remains in place and the creditor may not
act under its ipso facto clause.
The crux of the creditor’s remaining argument is consistent with an argument raised in In re
Donald: that the “ride-through” option was eliminated by BAPCPA revisions to the Bankruptcy
Code. 343 B.R. 524. Coastal argues that allowing the debtors in the present case to “ride-through”
is inconsistent with the court’s ruling in Donald. The debtors in Donald initially sought to retain their
vehicle and continue making payments on the debt without reaffirming the debt, a permissible
practice under In re Belanger, a pre-BAPCPA case. See In re Belanger, 962 F.2d 345 (4th Cir. 1992)
(holding that the debtor had alternatives under 11 U.S.C. § 521 to reaffirming, redeeming, or
surrendering collateral, such as retaining the collateral and remaining current in payments – often
referred to as “retain and pay,” the “fourth option,” and “ride through”). 	In Donald, this court
examined the debtors’ options at length and concluded that the BAPCPA revisions had changed the
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 8 of 10

5The “ride-through” option continues with respect to debts secured by real property. See In
re Wilson, 372 B.R. 816 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2007) (debtor with real property encumbered by mortgage
liens could properly elect to retain possession of the property and continue making payments on her
mortgage debts, under Belanger).
9
law regarding the “ride-through” option formerly upheld in Belanger.5 Specifically, the court found
that the “ride-through” option was eliminated through changes to what is now § 521(a)(2)(C) as well
as the addition of §§ 362(h), 521(a)(6), and 521(d). Donald, 343 B.R. at 539-40. As an alternative
course of action, the debtors in Donald filed a reaffirmation agreement, in the event that the “ride-
through” election failed. The debtors argued that by executing a reaffirmation agreement, they could
avoid the consequences arising from §§ 362(h), 521(a)(6), and 521(d), even where the reaffirmation
agreement is, or will become, unenforceable. 343 B.R. at 540. Essentially, the debtors argued that
the act of entering the agreement is separate and distinct from the court’s approval or disapproval and
that the debtors should not suffer the consequences of not reaffirming the debt when they did all that
was required of them under the Code.
This argument failed in Donald because the court ultimately found that entering into the
reaffirmation agreement was in the debtors’ best interest and would not cause them any undue
hardship. 	However, the court clearly stated that such an argument “may prevail in some
circumstances.” Id. The court stated:
In some circumstances a reaffirmation agreement entered into by the debtor in good
faith may satisfy the requirements of § 362(h), § 521(a)(6) and § 521(d) where the
court disapproves the reaffirmation agreement under § 524(c)(6), especially where the
debtor intends to perform under the reaffirmation agreement and where disapproval
by the court is beyond the debtor’s control.
Id. at 541. Based on the facts discussed above, this is such a case. Other courts have reached the
same conclusion regarding debtors who, through no fault of their own, face losing personal property
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 9 of 10

10
because their reaffirmation agreement was not approved. As the court held in In re Moustafi, a case
with similar facts:
BAPCPA’s amendments did not eliminate ride-through in every instance; the
amendments only eliminated ride-through for debtors who do not comply with §§
521(a)(2) or (a)(6). If Congress had intended to completely eliminate ride-through,
it could have done so by making §§ 362(h)(1) and 521(a)(6) apply if a reaffirmation
agreement is disapproved by the court.
In re Moustafi, 371 B.R. 434, 439 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2007). Similarly, the court in In re Blakeley held:
While BAPCPA has done away with simple “ride through” in bankruptcy, it has not
entirely eliminated the possibility that a debtor can “ride through” a bankruptcy and
retain possession of secured personal property. Under the limited circumstances [of
this matter], where a debtor timely complies with all requirements under §§ 521 and
362(h), the debtor can “ride through” the bankruptcy notwithstanding a bankruptcy
court’s refusal to approve the reaffirmation agreement.
In re Blakeley, 363 B.R. 225, 232 (Bankr. D. Utah 2007).
Accordingly, the court’s prior disapproval of the reaffirmation agreement stands. Because
court approval of a reaffirmation agreement is not an element of §§ 521(a)(2) and 362(h)(1), the
debtors complied with the requirements of the Code by doing everything within their control to
reaffirm the debt to Coastal. 	While “ride-through” is not a stand-alone option in addition to
surrender, redemption, or reaffirmation of a debt secured by personal property, it may, in limited
circumstances, occur as a result of a debtor’s attempt to reaffirm. 	Coastal’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED. The automatic stay remains in place with respect to Coastal, and as long
as the debtors remain current in their payments, Coastal may not repossess the vehicle or declare
default based on the debtors’ bankruptcy filing.
SO ORDERED.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 07-00954-5-ATS Doc 47 Filed 11/20/07 Entered 11/20/07 13:29:09 Page 10 of
10