Susana Vignon

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
Susana Vignon,
Debtor.
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 24-31610
Chapter 13
Judge Crist
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DOC. 39)
I. 	Introduction
This matter is before the Court on Debtor Susana Vignon’s (the “Debtor”) Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. 39) (the “Motion to Reconsider”), filed on November 26, 2025, by which she
“requests the Court reconsider dismissal of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy.” Mot. to Reconsider at 2.
II. 	Jurisdiction
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Motion to Reconsider pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1334(a) and (b) and Amended General Order No. 05-02 (Amended Standing Order of
Reference) entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), by which all cases under title 11 and all proceedings therein have been
referred to the bankruptcy judges for this District. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C.
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 8

2
§ 157(b)(2), and this Court may enter a final order within its constitutional authority given that
this concerns the prior dismissal of Debtor’s chapter 13 case before this Court.
III. 	Background
Debtor filed her petition for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.
§ 101, et seq.) on August 23, 2024. See Petition (Doc. 1). Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan (Doc. 6) was
confirmed on November 21, 2024. See Confirmation Order (Doc. 18). Ten months later, on
September 19, 2025, John G. Jansing, Chapter 13 Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss for Cause for
Failure to Turn Over Tax Return and Refund and Notice of Hearing (Doc. 34) (the “Motion to
Dismiss”), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, because the Debtor had
“failed to turn over a copy of the 2024 Tax Return and Refund to the Chapter 13 Trustee as
required by the confirmation order.” Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 34). The Notice accompanying the
Motion to Dismiss provided 30 days from the date of service (September 19, 2025) to file a
response; so, until October 22, 2025, after adding three days to the response period due to service
upon the Debtor by first-class mail. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(f). The Notice also stated that
“[i]f no response is filed within the time period provided, then no hearing will be held and the
court may enter an order dismissing this case.” Notice of Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (Doc. 34).
Backing up, prior to the Motion to Dismiss, Debtor had filed an Amended Motion to
Modify Plan Post-Confirmation (Doc. 31) (the “Amended Motion to Modify”) on August 27,
2025. The Chapter 13 Trustee did not object to the Amended Motion to Modify1 and on
November 2, 2025, prior to entering the Dismissal Order, the Court entered the Order Approving
Debtor’s Amended Motion to Modify Plan Post-Confirmation (Doc. #31) (Doc. 35). In that Order
approving modification of the Plan, Debtor was authorized to lower her plan payments to $75 a
month for September, October, and November 2025, with payments set to resume at $1,175 a
month in December 2025. Salient to the present Motion to Reconsider, the reason for that plan
modification was explained as follows:
1 The Chapter 13 Trustee had objected (Doc. 29) to the original Debtor’s Motion to Modify Plan Post-Confirmation
(Doc. 28), filed on August 15, 2025, because she had proposed to suspend her plan payments, and given that Debtor
is above median income, “[t]he lowest reduction rate is $75 per month.” Chp. 13 Tr.’s Resp. in Opp. to Debtor’s
Mot. for Suspension of Payments (Doc. 28) (Doc. 29) (the “Objection”). Following the filing of Debtor’s Amended
Motion to Modify, which provided that she would make payments of $75 per month for the three months at issue,
the Chapter 13 Trustee withdrew his Objection (Doc. 33).
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 8

3
1. 	The Chapter 13 Plan, confirmed on November 21, 2024, presently
calls for her to pay $1175 per month. A 45% dividend will be paid to the general
unsecured creditors.
2. 	Debtor was recently married. 	Her spouse is unemployed. 	He is
requiring a kidney transplant, and Debtor will be off work and incurring costs
related to the medical procedure. 	She wishes to lower her plan payment to $75
per month for September, October, and November 2025. Any funds received by
the trustee exceeding that amount during these months shall be returned to
Debtor. 	Debtor will resume plan payments of $1175 per month beginning in
December 2025. The unsecured dividend will remain 45%.
Am. Mot. to Modify (Doc 31) at 1, ¶ 2.
Three days after entering the Order (Doc. 35) approving Debtor’s reduction in plan
payments, on November 5, 2025, the Court entered the Post-Confirmation Dismissal Order
(Doc. 34) (Doc. 36) (the “Dismissal Order”) because no party, including the Debtor, timely
responded or objected to dismissal of this case. In the Motion to Reconsider, Debtor asks the
Court to reconsider the Dismissal Order, stating that she “has been dealing with her spouse’s
serious health conditions and missed the correspondence from Counsel and the court regarding
her missing return” and that “Counsel uploaded the return on November 26, 2025.” Mot. at 2.
The Notice of Motion attached to the Motion to Reconsider stated that recipients had twenty-one
(21) days to respond. This response period expired, at the latest, on Monday, December 22,
2025. And nobody, including the Chapter 13 Trustee, who would know whether Debtor had
uploaded her tax return on November 26, 2025, objected to the Motion to Reconsider.
IV. 	Analysis
This case presents a close call given that Debtor has not provided the Court with an
affidavit or declaration, or much detail, in support of her Motion to Reconsider. Nonetheless,
from a review of the assertions made in the Motion to Reconsider, which are corroborated by the
prior Amended Motion to Modify, from a review of the case record, and in the absence of any
objections, particularly any objection by the Chapter 13 Trustee (given the case was originally
dismissed on his motion for Debtor’s failure to turn over a copy of her 2024 tax return and
refund, the Court is inclined to grant relief because, in this instance, the Court has “much
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 8

4
discretion” to do so,2 and because it appears the Debtor has experienced a significant family
medical situation, her counsel represents that she uploaded the return the same day she filed this
Motion to Reconsider, and reinstatement of this case would be in the best interests of the Debtor,
the estate, and her creditors.
There is no recognition of a motion to reconsider under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (the “Civil Rules”), which are made applicable to bankruptcy cases by the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”). See Hogan v. Dicicco (In re Hogan), 79
F. App’x 846, 848 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 617 (6th Cir.
2002); Lopez v. Long (In re Long), 255 B.R. 241, 244 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2000)); see also In re
Murray Energy Holdings Co., 658 B.R. 133, 137 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2024) (citing Hogan, 79 F.
App’x at 848). However, such a motion is generally construed as either a motion to alter or
amend a judgment under Civil Rule 59(e), which is made applicable to bankruptcy cases by
Bankruptcy Rule 9023(a), or, in the alternative, a motion for relief from judgment under Civil
Rule 60, which is made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Bankruptcy Rule 9024(a). Id.
In bankruptcy, the time to file a motion to alter or amend judgment under Civil Rule
59(e) is shortened by Bankruptcy Rule 9023(b), which requires such a motion to be filed “within
14 days after the judgment3 is entered[,]” as opposed to Civil Rule 59(e), which permits such a
motion outside of bankruptcy to be “filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” And
the Court cannot extend this period. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(2) (providing that “[t]he court
must not extend the time to act under Rules . . . 9023[] and 9024.”); see also Rice v. McKeehan
(In re McKeehan), Case No. 96-29658-K, Adv. No. 96-1251, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 2087, at
*15-16 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. June 8, 1999). Here, Debtor’s Motion was filed twenty-one (21)
days after her case was dismissed, so the Court is unable to consider a motion to alter or amend
judgment at this point. Thus, Debtor’s only avenue for relief from the Dismissal Order is under
2 In this regard this Order exemplifies the difference that discretion can make, as this Order stands in contrast to and
is distinguishable from the Court’s recent Order Denying Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal (Doc. 21) and
Concerning Attorney Fees (Doc. 24), entered in In re Vaughan, Case No. 25-31806 on January 2, 2026. Therein, the
motion to vacate was denied because the chapter 13 case had been automatically dismissed under 11 U.S.C. § 521(i)
due to Debtor’s failure to comply with § 521(a)(1)(B)(v), and “ ‘§ 521(i) is a very unforgiving statute.’ ” Id. at 2
(quoting In re Olsen, No. 20-20087, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1428, at *9 (Bankr. D. Utah June 1, 2020) (analyzing an
unopposed motion to vacate an automatic dismissal under § 521(i) pursuant to Civil Rule 60(b))).
3 Under Bankruptcy Rule 9001(b)(7), the word “ ‘[j]udgment’ means any appealable order.”
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 8

5
Civil Rule 60(b), made applicable to this bankruptcy case without modification to the timing for
filing by Bankruptcy Rule 9024(a).
A motion for relief from an order of dismissal of a chapter 13 case, entered on a motion
to dismiss for cause, can be granted under Civil Rule 60(b). See, e.g., Geberegeorgis v.
Gammarino (In re Geberegeorgis), 310 B.R. 61, 69-70 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2004) (affirming the
bankruptcy court’s grant of relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(6) to vacate a prior order dismissing the
debtor’s chapter 13 case, due to failure to make plan payments resulting from sickness and
hospitalization, to resume performance under a confirmed chapter 13 plan). In fact, “ ‘[m]otions
to vacate dismissal orders, or motions to reinstate cases as they are colloquially called, are
frequent procedural requests.” In re Faulkner, No. 19-12803, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59715, at
*5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2020) (quoting In re Geberegeorgis, 310 B.R. at 66). And “ ‘bankruptcy
courts are authorized to set aside a final judgment or order, including case dismissal orders,
under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) into practice under the
Bankruptcy Code.’ ” Id.
The Motion to Reconsider now before this Court was filed within a reasonable time, in
compliance with Civil Rule 60(c)(1), just twenty-one (21) days after the Dismissal Order was
entered. “The party seeking to invoke [Civil Rule 60(b)] bears the burden of establishing that its
prerequisites are satisfied.” McCurry v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 298 F.3d 586, 592
(6th Cir. 2002) (citing Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2001)). Debtor has
not cited any Civil Rule, Bankruptcy Rule, or case law in support of the Motion. Thus, the Court
and parties do not know which sub-part of Civil Rule 60(b), if any, Debtor asserts would apply.
And for this reason, the Court could be justified in simply denying the Motion to Reconsider.
However, it appears that courts often look past this type of deficiency in this type of situation.
Upon an initial review, either (b)(1) or (b)(6) of Civil Rule 60 would most likely apply, which
permit this Court to relieve the Debtor from the Dismissal Order “for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (b)(6). However, the case law appears to decline to apply
Civil Rule 60(b)(1) to this type of situation in which counsel is not claiming any excusable
neglect. Sub-parts (2) through (5) of Civil Rule 60(b) appear to have no application based on the
facts alleged in the Motion. Thus, this leaves Civil Rule 60(b)(6).
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 8

6
The Sixth Circuit has instructed that “ ‘courts must apply Rule 60(b)(6) relief only in
unusual and extreme situations where principles of equity mandate relief.’ ” McCurry, 298 F.3d
at 592 (quoting Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519,
524 (6th Cir. 2001)) (emphasis in original). At the same time, use of Civil Rule 60(b)(6) to grant
relief from a dismissal order in a similar circumstance involving a health situation has been
affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit. In re Geberegeorgis, 310 B.R.
61, 66-67 (concluding that “[i]n this case, clauses (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Rule 60(b) are clearly
inapplicable. The Panel will therefore analyze whether either clause (1) or clause (6) of Rule
60(b) authorized the bankruptcy court to vacate its dismissal order.”).
Here, the fundamental question is whether the Court can grant relief to this Debtor based
on the short, unopposed Motion to Reconsider. In this instance, the equities appear to lie squarely
in favor of the Debtor, considering that her chapter 13 case was dismissed solely for failure to
submit a tax return to the Chapter 13 Trustee and to respond to the Motion to Dismiss while she
was apparently dealing with a family medical situation. While there is no affidavit or declaration
filed in support of the Motion to Reconsider, there is a proffered explanation of her serious
family medical situation corroborated by the Debtor’s prior Motion to Modify. And nobody,
particularly the Chapter 13 Trustee who could confirm receipt of the 2024 tax return that led to
dismissal of this chapter 13 case, objected to the Motion to Reconsider.
As noted in the background above, Debtor had previously moved to modify her chapter
13 plan to lower her plan payments for three months because:
2. 	Debtor was 	recently married. Her spouse is unemployed. He is
requiring a kidney transplant, and Debtor will be off of work and incurring costs
related to the medical procedure.
Motion to Modify (Doc. 31) at 1, ¶ 2. Debtor’s Schedule I (Doc. 1 at 27) corroborates that she
did not have a spouse when she filed her Petition on August 23, 2024. There was no opposition
to that Motion to Modify and, as noted in the background above, the Court entered its Order
(Doc. 35) granting that Motion to Modify on November 2, 2025, just three days before entering
the Dismissal Order. Debtor’s basis for the current Motion, by which she seeks to resume her
chapter 13 case, relates to the same circumstance that led to her Motion to Modify. As explained
in Debtor’s present Motion to Reconsider:
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 8

7
Debtor filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy on August 23, 2024. The case was
dismissed on November 5, 2025, because Debtor failed to provide her 2024 tax
return to the Trustee. Debtor has been dealing with her spouse’s serious health
condition and missed the correspondence from Counsel and the court regarding
her missing return. Counsel uploaded the return on November 26, 2025.
Debtor understands her responsibility to provide all returns in the future.
Due to the foregoing, Debtor requests the Court reconsider dismissal of
her Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Mot. to Reconsider at 2.
Notwithstanding the spartan nature and mistitling of the Motion to Reconsider, because
the alleged basis in support – a family medical situation – is corroborated by the prior unopposed
Motion to Modify, which the Court granted just three days prior to entering the Dismissal Order;
because the Motion to Reconsider was properly noticed under LBR 9013-1(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2),
LBR 9013-3, and notified all parties that, in accordance with LBR 9013-1(d), the relief may be
granted if no response was timely filed; because the Motion to Reconsider is unopposed; because
there does not appear to be any improper purpose in Debtor seeking this relief; because this
situation appears to be beyond Debtor’s making (for which she does not appear to be culpable);
and because there is no harm to any of the parties to this case, the Court is inclined to grant the
Motion based on the equities, although denying the Motion to Reconsider without prejudice
would also be within its discretion. See In re Jones, No. 19-13673, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1460, at
*6 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2020) (Buchanan, J.) (citing Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc.,
538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008) for the proposition that “ ‘the party seeking relief under [Civil]
Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing
evidence.’ ”).
The foregoing facts satisfy the basic elements for granting relief under Civil Rule 60(b),
under the “three equitable factors derived from Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 jurisprudence as to ‘good
cause’ for setting aside default entries[, which are]: (1) whether plaintiff will be prejudiced if the
judgment is vacated; (2) whether the defendant had a meritorious defense; and (3) whether
culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default.” In re Geberegeorgis, 310 B.R. at 67 (citing
United Coin Meter Co. v. Seaboard Coastline R.R., 705 F.2d 839, 845 (6th Cir. 1983) and
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 8

8
concluding that “[i]n this context, these circumstances are analogous to there being a meritorious
defense in conventional civil lawsuits involving a plaintiff and a defendant.”).
The Court also notes that this is Ms. Vignon’s first bankruptcy case; her Chapter 13 Plan
(Doc. 6), which was confirmed on the first try without objection, provides for the payment of
45% on allowed nonpriority unsecured claims; and there were no prior motions to dismiss her
case. Thus, the circumstances under which the Motion to Reconsider was filed are all in favor of
granting the relief and giving the Debtor another shot at completing her Chapter 13 Plan.
This one is a close call, but in this instance the Court will grant relief under Civil Rule
60(b)(6) because the Court has “much discretion” in this regard and vacating the Dismissal Order
in this case will serve substantial justice and foster “the bankruptcy policies of promoting both
reorganization 	and 	equality 	of 	distribution 	to 	creditors,” 	such 	that 	this 	is 	the 	type 	of
“extraordinary circumstance[] within the ambit of Rule 60(b)(6).” In re Geberegeorgis, 310 B.R.
at 70 (citing Beaman v. Levy (In re Levy), 75 B.R. 894 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1987) (Waldron, J.)
(granting a motion to vacate a default judgment)); see also In re Jones, No. 23-24343, 2024
Bankr. LEXIS 896, at *10-11 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2024) (finding grounds to grant relief
under Civil Rule 60(b)(6)).
That said, counsel for the Debtor would be well-advised, in the future, to support any
such motion to vacate an order of dismissal with citations to the appropriate Federal Rules of
Procedure, as well as an affidavit or declaration, such that it is not a close call as to whether the
motion provides enough information or proffers enough evidence to satisfy the factors required
to receive relief under Civil Rule 60(b). See Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 628-29 (6th Cir.
2012).
V. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 39) is hereby GRANTED on the basis of
Civil Rule 60(b)(6), made applicable to this bankruptcy case by Bankruptcy Rule 9024(a), such
that the prior Dismissal Order is hereby vacated and the Debtor’s chapter 13 case is hereby
reinstated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to: Default List
Case 3:24-bk-31610 Doc 40 Filed 01/05/26 Entered 01/05/26 12:19:43 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 8