Daniel T Maxwell and Donna M Maxwell

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re:
Daniel T. Maxwell and Donna M. Maxwell,
Debtors.
) 	Case No.: 09-37095
)
) 	Chapter 7
)
) 	Hon. Mary Ann Whipple
)
)
)
ORDER
The 	court held a hearing on February 1, 2011, on Debtors’ Motion to Vacate Revocation of
Discharge and Reinstate Discharge of Debtor, [Doc. # 42], and the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the
motion, [Doc. # 43]. Debtors, Attorney for Debtors and the Chapter 7 Trustee appeared in person at the
hearing.
This Chapter 7 case was commenced on October 13, 2009. The court entered a stipulated order on
February 8, 2010, requiring Debtors to reimburse the estate the total sum of $2,500 on account of a 2003
Ford Focus that was transferred without consideration by Debtors to their daughter in March of 2009, with
payments of $50 per month and the balance due on April 15, 2010. 	In bolded underlined type, 	the
stipulated order specified that “in the event Debtors Fail to make the payment...or if the debtors do not pay
the balance in full on or before April 15, 2010, then upon the filing of an Affidavit of Default by the Trustee,
the Court shall revoke the Debtors’ discharges without further notice or hearing.” [Doc. # 25, p.2/3].
Debtors made two $50 payments to the Trustee in February 2010 then did not make any further
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: February 07 2011
09-37095-maw Doc 51 FILED 02/07/11 ENTERED 02/07/11 16:23:11 Page 1 of 2

payments. The balance due by April 15,2010, was not paid. Debtors did not contact the Trustee or attempt
to address the issue. On September 14, 2010, the Trustee filed her Affidavit in accordance with the
stipulated order attesting to Debtors’ non-compliance with their obligations thereunder. [Doc. # 31]. On
September 20, 2010, the court entered its order revoking Debtors’ discharges in accordance with the
stipulated order. [Doc. # 32]. The Trustee thereupon prepared her final account certifying completion of
administration of the estate and filed it with the court on November 1, 2010, [Doc. # 35], with notice of the
account sent to creditors and other parties in interest on November 3, 2010. The court entered its order
approving the final account on December 2, 2010. [Doc. # 38]. On January 11, 2011, Debtors filed the
instant motion asking the court to vacate the order vacating their discharges and seeking reinstatement of
same. The basis for Debtors’ motion is that they are now prepared to satisfy the monetary obligation they
agreed to in the February 8, 2010, order.
The Trustee gave up significant rights for the benefit of creditors in reliance on the reasonable
agreement memorialized in the court’s stipulated order, including seeking avoidance of the transfer and
timely recovery and liquidation of the motor vehicle for the benefit of the estate. Debtors were represented
by counsel in entering into the stipulated order. The order was clear and direct. The consequences for
noncompliance were bolded and underlined. Debtors then failed without excuse to comply with the court’s
order. They made no 	contact with the Trustee to address the issue or clarify any purported
misunderstanding of the order and waited too long, until after administration of the estate was complete, to
come forward belatedly nearly a year after the original order was entered and more than eight months after
their financial obligation to the estate was to have been completed. Creditors, the estate and the Trustee
have been prejudiced by Debtors’ non-compliance with the court’s order and delay and belated compliance
with the court’s order cannot now completely rectify that prejudice. As stated by the court on the record
at the hearing, the court finds no basis in law, fact or equity, under the authority of Rule 60(b) or otherwise,
to vacate its valid September 20, 2010, order and reinstate Debtors’ discharges even if they now pay the
estate the funds that were due by April 15, 2010.
THEREFORE, based on the foregoing reasons and authorities and as otherwise stated on the record
by the court at the hearing,
IT IS ORDERED that 	Debtors’ Motion to Vacate Revocation of Discharge and Reinstate
Discharge of Debtor, [Doc. # 42], be, and hereby is, DENIED.
2
09-37095-maw Doc 51 FILED 02/07/11 ENTERED 02/07/11 16:23:11 Page 2 of 2