Untimely Reaffirmation Agreements Will Be Stricken

Written by Adam Peck Category: Nursing Homes January 17th, 2013 2 min read

This Bankruptcy matter was brought pursuant to Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code, for consideration of a reaffirmation agreement between the debtors (the “Debtors”) and (the “Creditor”) and to show cause as to why the reaffirmation agreement should not be stricken as a result of a failure to comply with Rule 4008(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Debtors sought to reaffirm a debt in the amount of $10,998.21, which debt is secured by a 2002 Toyota Tundra,
The reaffirmation agreement was filed with the Court on January 26, 2010, and was therefore not filed with the Court within sixty (60) days after the first date set for the Section 341 meeting of creditors as required by Bankruptcy Rule 4009(a). The Debtors filed their bankruptcy petition on October 29, 2009, and on the same date filed their statement of intentions indicating that they intended to retain their 2002 Toyota Tundra and reaffirm their debt with the Creditor. Upon reviewing the agreement, the record in this case, and the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds that the Debtors properly filed their statement of intention indicating that they wanted to reaffirm the debt, as required by Section 524(c), and further, the Debtors took all reasonable steps to perform their intention with respect to such property pursuant to Section 521(a)(2).

The reaffirmation agreement between the Debtors and the Creditor, filed on January 26, 2010, is stricken and will not be approved by the Court as the reaffirmation agreement was filed with the Court beyond sixty (60) days, as required by Bankruptcy Rule 4008(a). Further, since the Debtors timely complied with the requirements of Section 524(c) and 521(a)(2), and in all respects agreed to reaffirm the debt on the original terms of the contract, the Court finds that (1) the automatic stay remains in effect, (2) the vehicle remains property of the estate pursuant to Section 521(d) that would give it effect have not been met, so long as the Debtors remain current in their payments on the property. See Coastal Federal Credit Union v. Hardiman, 398 B.R. 161, 189 (E.D.N.C. 2008); In re Husain, 364 B.R. 211, 219 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007); In re Hinson, 352 B.R. 48, 53 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006).

Share it

Questions? Check with Peck Today

Blog Lead Form

Elder Abuse and Neglect in Assisted Living Facilities

Elopement in Nursing Homes

Assisted Living Abuse

Settlement Reached in Assisted Living Facility Death

Assisted Living Abuse and Neglect Attorneys

Written by Adam Peck

Expertise: Personal Injury

Adam J. Peck, ESQ is a principal with Peck Law Group, APC. In 2008, Mr. Adam Peck received his Juris Doctorate from Whittier Law School where he graduated Cum Laude. His practice is primarily dedicated to representing Elders, Dependent Adults, along with their loved ones and family members, who have suffered horrific personal injuries.