Destiny M Arquette

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re:
Destiny M. Arquette
Debtor
) 	Case No. 10-31622
)
) 	Chapter 7
)
) 	JUDGE MARY ANN WHIPPLE
)
)
)
ORDER DENYING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
This case came before the court for hearing on June 8, 2010, 	on Debtor’s Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal [Doc. # 13] (“Motion”).
A third-party post-petition tort claimant, Amber Hauck-Tucker, filed a written objection to
the Motion. [Doc. # 16]. Although not so stated in her written Motion, counsel acknowledged at
the hearing that Debtor wants to dismiss this case because she incurred additional debt in the form
of potential tort liability arising after the commencement of this case. Her stated intention is to re-
file another Chapter 7 case after she dismisses this one, so as to attempt to discharge any new debt
to Amber Hauck-Tucker that she incurred post-petition. A post-petition claimant such as Ms. Hauck-
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: June 11 2010
10-31622-maw Doc 19 FILED 06/11/10 ENTERED 06/11/10 15:41:35 Page 1 of 3

Tucker is a party in interest and has standing to be heard on a request for voluntary dismissal
intended to add new creditors. In re Compton, 161 B.R. 636, 638 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993).
Section 707(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the court may dismiss a Chapter 7 case
“only for cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 707(a). This provision stands in meaningful and marked contrast to
the liberal voluntary dismissal provision applicable to Chapter 13 cases, which states that “[o]n
request of the debtor at any time...the court shall dismiss a case under this chapter.” 11 U.S.C. §
1307(b). In the view of most courts, including this one, a Chapter 7 debtor may not “automatically”
dismiss a case on request under § 707(a). In re MacDonald, 73 B.R. 254, 256 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio
1987). 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 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
oneself in bankruptcy may not always choose to terminate the proceedings, even if unforseen
consequences arise. Id. at 169. And so it is here.
Numerous courts have denied a debtor’s voluntary motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 case when
she intends to re-file and 	list post-petition debts, finding that such action cause prejudice to
creditors. E.g., In re Hopkins, 261 B.R. 822 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001); In re McCullough, 229 B.R.
374, 377 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1999); 	In re Sheets, 174 B.R. 254, 256 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1994). As
another judge of this court aptly explained,
2
10-31622-maw Doc 19 FILED 06/11/10 ENTERED 06/11/10 15:41:35 Page 2 of 3

The Bankruptcy Code contemplates that a singular point in time, the date of filing
of the bankruptcy petition, is to be used to define the bankruptcy estate and the debts that are
to be discharged. Simply put, it has to stop sometime. There will always be additional debts,
and Congress has chosen to only allow the benefits of a Chapter 7 discharge once every six
[n.b. now 8] years. Allowing debtor to add additional creditors undermines the fundamental
precept of the bankruptcy system.
In re Sheets, 174 B.R. at 256.
In particular, in a case on point with this one, the debtors in Compton sought to voluntarily
dismiss and re-file their Chapter 7 case so as to list a creditor in the new case whose claim arose
from a post-petition automobile accident. Compton, 161 B.R. at 637. That is what occurred in this
case due to a third-party driver of Debtor’s motor vehicle having been in an accident involving
personal injury Amber Hauck-Tucker. The court in Compton persuasively denied the requested
voluntary dismissal as an effort to circumvent the significance of the bankruptcy petition date, the
meaning of “claim” and the statutory limitations on the availability of Chapter 7 relief. There is no
basis shown in the record upon which the outcome of Debtor’s Motion should be any different than
the Compton case.
The court finds that post-petition creditors will be prejudiced and that Debtor has not shown
cause for dismissal of this case.
Based on the foregoing reasons and authorities, and as otherwise stated by the court on the
record during the hearing,
IT IS ORDERED that Debtor’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [Doc. # 13] is DENIED,
without prejudice.
3
10-31622-maw Doc 19 FILED 06/11/10 ENTERED 06/11/10 15:41:35 Page 3 of 3