Derek Q York and Stephanie N York

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re
Derek Q. York
Stephanie N. York
Debtors.
) 	Case No. 	09-37370
)
) 	Chapter 7
)
)
) 	JUDGE MARY ANN WHIPPLE
ORDER
The court held on March 9, 2010, a hearing on Debtors’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) this
pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy case [Doc. # 16], which the court construes as a motion under Fed. R.
Bank.P. 1017(f) and 9014. The Trustee appeared in person at the hearing. There was no appearance
by or on behalf of Debtors. For the reasons set forth below, and as explained on the record at the
hearing, the court denies the Motion.
The Motion gives no reason for dismissal and none was offered at the hearing, although the
Trustee indicated that he believed that he understood there was marital discord. Debtors commenced
this voluntary Chapter 7 case on October 22, 2009. They have not appeared thus far at a meeting of
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings
and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document has been
entered electronically in the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.
Dated: March 16 2010
09-37370-maw Doc 24 FILED 03/16/10 ENTERED 03/16/10 14:56:09 Page 1 of 3

2
creditors at which the Trustee could inquire of their assets and liabilities and their financial affairs
generally.
Section 707(a) provides that the court may dismiss a Chapter 7 case “only for cause.” In the
view of most courts, a Chapter 7 Debtor may not automatically dismiss her case. In re MacDonald,
73 B.R. 254, 256 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987); see In re Asbury, 2010 WL 43716, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS
301, *7 (8th Cir. B.A.P., Feb. 9, 2010)(“The terms of the Bankruptcy Code do not provide a simple
mechanism for a Chapter 7 debtor who decides he wants to abandon his case prior to discharge”). The
Trustee has standing to object to a voluntary dismissal, as he has orally 	here, due to his lack of
information as would be gained at a meeting of creditors. In re Carroll, 24 B.R. 83, 85 (Bankr. N.D.
Ohio 1982); In re Hall, 15 B.R. 913, 915-16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1981) (also applies prejudice to creditors
as the test for measuring the propriety of a Debtor’s voluntary dismissal). 	Courts have denied a
debtor’s request to voluntarily dismiss a Chapter 7 case where creditors have been or will be
prejudiced by the dismissal. See, e.g., MacDonald, 73 B.R. at 256; In re Banks, 35 B.R. 59, 60-61
(Bankr. D. Md. 1983). Courts have also denied a debtor’s request to voluntarily dismiss a case when
property has been or will be obtained by the Trustee that may or will satisfy at least part of the
debtor’s obligations. See e.g., In re Klein, 39 B.R. 530 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 1984) (debtor’s reason for
dismissal was settlement of pending lawsuit, which court rejected) In re Blackmon, 3 B.R. 167 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 1980).
As the court noted in Blackmon, a debtor who chooses to place himself or herself in bankruptcy
may not always choose to terminate the proceedings, even if unforseen or perhaps misunderstood
consequences arise. Id. at 169. And so it is here. Debtors have 	availed themselves of the benefits
of this case through the automatic stay with respect to unsecured debt exceeding $51,000. Yet the
09-37370-maw Doc 24 FILED 03/16/10 ENTERED 03/16/10 14:56:09 Page 2 of 3

3
status of their assets and liabilities and the potential for repayment of and prejudice to creditors has
not been examined due to non-appearance at a meeting of creditors. The court finds that cause for
voluntary dismissal has not been shown.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Debtors’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 16] shall be, and
it hereby is, DENIED.
09-37370-maw Doc 24 FILED 03/16/10 ENTERED 03/16/10 14:56:09 Page 3 of 3