Lester Doneal Bourage

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

1¢

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28_ Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 7

—— FATERED

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES DIVISION

In re Case No. LA 06-15095 ER

Chapter 7

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING
MOTION FOR ORDER TO REOPEN CASE
TO ALLOW FOR THE FILING OF THE
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COURSE
CERTIFICATE, FOR APPROVAL

OF REAFFIRMATION

LESTER D. BOURAGE, SR.

Debtor. [NO HEARING]

we eee ee ee ee a ee ee ee et

On April 27, 2007, Debtor Lester D. Bourage, Sr. (“Debtor”) filed
a Motion for Order to Reopen Case to Allow for the Filing of the

Financial Management Course Certificate, for Approval of Reaffirmation’

1 By order entered April 10, 2007, a reaffirmation agreement
between the Debtor and Wells Fargo Auto Finance (“Reaffirmation
Agreement”) was disapproved due to the Debtor's failure to appear
at the reaffirmation hearing. The Reaffirmation Agreement was
filed on February 14, 2007. On February 21, 2007, the Court mailed
a Notice of Hearing re: Reaffirmation Agreement to the Debtor,
which stated that “[i]lf the Debtor(s) choose(s) not to appear at
the hearing [held on April 4, 2007], the Reaffirmation Agreement

will be disapproved and declared unenforceable.” In the Motion,
the Debtor indicates that he “was not diligent in checking [his]
mail” because he “was in the process of moving.” He also states

that he did not attend the hearing because he mistakenly believed

AUTHENTICATED

U.S. GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

(continued...)

GPO

3 appearance was not necessary for court approval of the

10

11

12

13

14

i5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28_ Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 7

(“Motion”). No hearing was set. In the Motion, the Debtor requests
that his case be reopened so that he may file a financial management
course certificate.’ For the reasons given infra Part III, the Motion
is denied.

I. Jurisdiction

This Court hag jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334(a) (2006) (“[T]he district courts shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11.”), 28 U.S.C. §
157(a) (“Each district court may provide that any or all cases under

title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising
in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the
bankruptcy judges for the district.”), General Order No. 266 of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
{referring “all cases under Title 11 and all proceedings under Title il
or arising in or related to a case under Title 11” to the district’s
bankruptcy judges), and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (“Bankruptcy judges may hear
and determine .. . all core proceedings ... .”}. The Debtor’s

Motion is a core proceeding because reopening a bankruptcy case to file

le. .continued)
Reaffirmation Agreement and because his work schedule was crowded.
If his case is reopened, the Debtor requests that the court set

another hearing on the Reaffirmation Agreement.

2 In relevant part, § 727 of the Bankruptcy Code states: “The
Court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless. . . after filing
the petition, the debtor failed to complete an instructional course
concerning personal financial management described in [11 U.S.C. §&
111]... .” +2112 U.S.C. § 727 (a) (11).

In order to demonstrate compliance with § 727(a} (11), the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California requires all individual debtors in Chapter 7 cases to
file Official Form 23 (which is captioned “Debtor’s Certification
of Completion of Instructional Course Concerning Personal Financial
Management”). See Local Bankruptcy Rule 1002-1(c); Official Form
23.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28 Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 7

an official Bankruptcy Court form and a financial management course
certificate are administrative matters that arise only in bankruptcy.

See Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine Mills), 44 F.3d 1431, 1435

(9th Cir. 2995).

II. Statement of Facts and Procedural History

The Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition on October 10,
2006. Two days later, on October 12, 2006, the Court served by maii a
“Notice of Requirement to File a Statement of Completion of Course in
Personal Financial Management (Official Form 23)" (“Notice”). The
Notice informed the Debtor that, in order to receive a discharge, he
must file Official Form 23 within 45 days after the first date set for
the meeting of creditors under § 341(a).? The Notice also explained
that “[flailure to file the certification will result in the case being
closed without entry of a discharge.”* The Debtor never filed Official
Form 23. As a result, his case was closed without a discharge by order

entered April 17, 2007.°

3 The § 341(/a) meeting of creditors in this case was first set

for November 9, 2006, Therefore, Official Form 23 was due on
December 26, 2006.
4 The Notice also indicated that: “Tf the debtor(s)

subsequently file(s) a Motion to Reopen the Case to allow for the
filing of the Official Form 23, the debtor(s) must pay the full
reopening fee due for filing the Motion.” This sentence was
intended to encourage the Debtor to timely file Official Form 23 by
making him aware that he would be required to pay a reopening fee
with any request to reopen his case. It does not suggest that the
Debtor may choose to file Official Form 23 anytime after his case
was closed simply by paying an additional fee.

5 On February 16, 2007, Chapter 7 Trustee Edward M. Wolkowitz
made a notation on the Docket Sheet for this case indicating that
he had concluded the § 341(a) meeting and determined that “there
are no assets to administer for the benefit of creditors of this
estate.” He also requested that he be discharged from office and
relieved of his trustee duties in this case.

-3-

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

29

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28 Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 7

The Debtor now argues that his failure to file Official Form 23
was due to “excusable neglect, mistake, and other events beyond [his]
control." He explains that never received notice of the financial
management course requirement either from this Court or from parties in
attendance at his § 341(a) meeting. The Debtor suggests that he did
not receive some of his mail because he was moving.® Finally, the
Debtor states that, as a paralegal by trade, he has assisted numerous
individuals to prepare bankruptcy petitions in the past. However,
“because of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws,” the Debtor
explains, he found his “own bankruptcy to be very challenging.”’

III. Discussion

Section 350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code states: “A case may be
reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer
assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.” 11 U.S.C.
§ 350(b). However, “[t]he court’s decision to reopen is entirely
within its sound discretion, based upon the circumstances of each

case.” Elias v. Lisowski Law Firm, CHTD. (In re Elias), 215 B.R. 600,

604 (B.A.P. 9° Cir. 1997) aff'd sub nom. EFilas v. United States Trustee

(In re Elias), 188 F.3d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, the Court finds that the circumstances do not warrant
reopening the Debtor's case. The Debtor states that he finds the

recent changes in the bankruptcy laws to be “challenging.” However,

6 The Debtor states in a sworn declaration that he “was not
diligent in checking [his] mail at the 1725 La Fayette Road address
fthe mailing address listed in the Court’s file] because [he] was
in the process of moving to Anaheim, California.”

7 In 2005, Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) which, inter alia, changed many
of the requirements for individuals in Chapter 7 cases. Presumably
the Debtor was referring to BAPCPA when he stated that the changes
in the bankruptcy laws were “challenging.”

-4-

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28 Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 5 of 7

this does not excuse the Debtor from complying with unambiguous

Bankruptcy Code provisions and Bankruptcy Rules. See, e.g., Warrick v.

Birdsell, 278 B.R. 182, 187 (9th Cir. BAP 2002) (concluding that a
debtor’s status as pro se litigant did not excuse her failure to
understand and follow unambiguous rules governing time for appeal,
particularly in light of the fact that she held law degree and also ran
paralegal firm). Both Interim Bankruptcy Rule 1007(c) and the Notice
clearly indicate that the required statement of compliance with the
financial management course requirement must be “filed by the debtor
within 45 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors
under § 341 of the Code in a chapter 7 case.” Interim Bankr. R.
1007(c). The Debtor was required to comply with this deadline, even if
it was difficult for him to understand all of the provisions of the

Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules. Briones v. Riviera Hotel &

Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that pro se litigants
are not excused from following court rules).

Furthermore, the Court is not persuaded by the Debtor’s argument
that he was unaware of the financial management course requirement.
Two Gays after his case was filed, the Court sent the Notice to the
Debtor explaining that he was required to complete a financial
management course in order to receive a discharge. Although the Debtor
suggests that he was moving and, as a result may not have received the
Notice in the mail, the Court notes that the Debtor never filed a
notice of change of address. Moreover, the Debtor’s mailing address
listed on the Motion to Reopen is the same address listed in the
Debtor’s petition. It is also the same address to which the Court
mailed the Notice. Even if the Debtor has moved, his mailing address

apparently never changed. Therefore, service of the Motion appears to

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28_ Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 7

be proper. Accordingly, the Debtor is not excused from filing Official
Form 23 merely because he was busy at work or because he “was not
diligent in checking [his] mail.”

IV. Conclusion

The Motion is denied. The Debtor has not demonstrated that his
case should be reopened under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b). No hearing on the

Motion or on any reaffirmation agreement will be scheduled.

ERNEST M. ROBLES
United States Bankruptcy Judge

DATED: May 22, 2007

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-bk-15095-ER Doc 28 Filed 05/22/07 Entered 05/22/07 12:53:16 Desc
Main Document Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, >: hereby certify that onff AY 92 2002 '

I sent by U.S. mail a true copy of the MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING

MOTION FOR ORDER TO REOPEN CASE TO ALLOW FOR THE FILING OF THE
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COURSE CERTIFICATE, FOR APPROVAL OF REAFFIRMATION

to the parties at the addresses listed below:

Debtor Chapter 7 Trustee
Lester Doneal Bourage, &r Edward M Wolkowitz
1725 La Fayette Rd Robinson, Diamant & Wolkowitz
Los Angeles, Ca 90019 1888 Century Park East, #1500

Los Angeies, CA 90067

U.S. Trustee

United States Trustee (LA)

725 S Figueroa St., 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Aylair Irgote

Clerk