In re: Charles Muszynski

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 21, 2024
Docket23-02870
StatusUnknown

This text of In re: Charles Muszynski (In re: Charles Muszynski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Charles Muszynski, (prb 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 1 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

3 IN RE: CASE NO. 23-02870 (MCF)

4 CHARLES MUSZYNSKI CHAPTER 7

5 Debtor 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 The Court ordered the chapter 7 Debtor, Mr. Charles Muszynski’s (“Debtor”), to show 8 cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for two reasons; first, for his ineligibility to be 9 a debtor in a bankruptcy case, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) and second, for Debtor’s failure to 10 fully disclose his financial resources as required by the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant 11 U.S.C. § 11 521. Having considered Debtor’s response to the orders to show cause and related motions, we 12 conclude that the instant case should be dismissed for the reasons set forth below. 13

14 Relevant Procedural History 15 On May 11, 2023, Debtor filed a pro se bankruptcy case under chapter 7 at the Bankruptcy 16 Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Texas Bankruptcy Court”). His petition did not include 17 the credit counseling certificate required by 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h)(1) and 521(b)(1). 18 In the voluntary petition, Debtor certified that he asked for credit counseling services from 19 an approved agency but was unable to obtain the same during the 7 days after he made the request 20 and that exigent circumstances merited a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement. The 21 voluntary petition form specifically instructs debtors in a bankruptcy case who ask for a 30-day 22 temporary waiver of the requirement, to “attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you 23 made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for 24 bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.” (emphasis added) 25 Debtor failed to include such a document with his petition. 26 27 1 With the petition, Debtor filed schedules containing inaccurate and/or incomplete 2 information such as:1 i) executory contracts or unexpired leases were informed, but failed to 3 disclose the persons or companies with whom he had the contracts, the address of said persons or 4 companies and to state what the contracts or leases were for; ii) the Debtor disclosed that he was 5 a beneficiary of a trust, but failed to disclose any information of the trust; iii) the Debtor only 6 disclosed one trust even though he is beneficiary of two trusts and income information regarding 7 each trust was never disclosed nor their respective values; iv) the Debtor informed to have been 8 an officer, director, or managing executive of a corporation within four years before the 9 bankruptcy filing but failed to disclose the identity of any business; v) the source and amount of 10 income received by him during the year that the petition was filed and the two previous calendar 11 years was failed to be disclosed; and vi) the Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income 12 form was filed with zero income. 13 The day after the filing of the petition, on May 12, 2023, the Texas Bankruptcy Court 14 issued an order denying Debtor’s application for extension of time to meet credit counseling 15 requirement. Docket No. 5. In the order, the Texas Bankruptcy Court expressed that the 16 Voluntary Petition provides specific instructions for debtors choosing to seek a temporary waiver 17 of the credit counseling requirement; including a directive to "attach a separate sheet explaining 18 what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed 19 for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case." Id. The Texas 20 Bankruptcy Court further explained that no separate explanation was provided by Debtor and that 21 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A) does not authorize a court to extend the time for compliance with the 22 requirement unless the prerequisites above enumerated were met, including that a request for 23 credit counseling services was actually made, but could not be fulfilled prior to the filing of the 24 petition. 25 In the same order, the Texas Bankruptcy Court granted Debtor until May 26, 2023, to 26 fulfill the credit counseling requirement. In doing so, the court expressed that “[i]f such 27 1 Debtor disclosed assets in the amount of $12,230.00, a domestic support obligation (“DSO”) claim in the amount of 1 requirement is fulfilled prior to this date, the Court would hope that parties in interest would elect 2 to waive this eligibility issue in light of Debtor's pro se status, thereby avoiding a possible 3 pointless re-filing and the necessity of conducting a stay continuation hearing.” On June 2, 2023, 4 Debtor filed a “Certificate of Counseling” dated May 13, 2023. Docket No. 18. 5 On June 30, 2023, the Texas Bankruptcy Court conducted a preliminary hearing on a 6 “Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay” filed by Kerry S. Culpepper, a creditor, and joined by 7 other parties. Pursuant to the information that transcended during the hearing,2 on July 5, 2023, 8 the Texas Bankruptcy Court issued a sua sponte order to show cause as to why the case should 9 not be dismissed for lack of eligibility, pursuant 11 U.S.C. § 109(a)3 or alternatively, as to why 10 venue should not be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1408.4 Docket No. 41. 11 Debtor filed a response to the order to show cause on July 31, 2023, in which he asserted 12 that he qualifies as a debtor, pursuant 11 U.S.C. § 109(a) because he had a bank account in Texas 13 and furniture in Puerto Rico. Docket No. 56.5 On even date, Debtor filed a motion requesting 14 that the case be transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico; deeming it as 15 the most qualified venue according to Bankruptcy Rules and procedures since the majority of his 16 tangible and intangible property underlying his application are situated here. Docket No. 58. 17 Subsequently, on August 23, 2023, the Texas Bankruptcy Court issued an order transferring the 18 case to us. Docket No. 79. 19 20

21 2 The court expressed that it appears that “Debtor does not reside, have a domicile, nor a place of business in the United States. At best, Debtor may have ‘property in the United States.” Docket No. 41 at 2. As per Debtor’s 22 testimony, he resides in Nevis, St. Kitts & Nevis, WI. 3 11 U.S.C. § 109(a) provides that “only a person that resides or has a domicile, a place of business, or property in 23 the United States, or a municipality, may be debtor” under title 11. 4 28 U.S.C. § 1408

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Mohring
142 B.R. 389 (E.D. California, 1992)
Matter of Inwood Realty Co.
4 B.R. 459 (S.D. New York, 1980)
In Re Rolland
317 B.R. 402 (C.D. California, 2004)
Heidkamp v. Whitehead (In Re Whitehead)
278 B.R. 589 (M.D. Florida, 2002)
In Re Prater
445 B.R. 424 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2010)
In Re Fiorillo
455 B.R. 297 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)
Cusano v. Klein
264 F.3d 936 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
In re Markham
504 B.R. 1 (D. Massachusetts, 2013)
Taal v. Sumski
504 B.R. 682 (First Circuit, 2014)
Fraser v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Fraser)
599 B.R. 830 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Charles Muszynski, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-muszynski-prb-2024.