In Re Hoffman

358 B.R. 839, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3841, 2006 WL 3909712
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedAugust 4, 2006
Docket06-70231
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 358 B.R. 839 (In Re Hoffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Hoffman, 358 B.R. 839, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3841, 2006 WL 3909712 (Va. 2006).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

WILLIAM F. STONE, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Approval of a Reaffirmation Agreement filed June 20, 2006 in which the Debtors request the Court enter an order approving the reaffirmation agreement executed by the Debtors and Salem VA Medical Center Federal Credit Union pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(d). For the reasons noted below, the Court concludes that the Motion should be denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 23, 2006, the Debtors filed a voluntary joint petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On the same date, the Debtors filed a Statement of Intention in which they indicated their plan to reaffirm the debt owed to Salem VA Medical Center Federal Credit Union (“Salem Federal Credit Union”) secured by a 1999 Dodge Caravan. Salem Federal Credit Union was listed on the Debtors’ Schedule D with a claim in the amount of $11,500.00 secured by a lien on the title to a 1999 Dodge Caravan valued at $5,125.00. 1 The Debtors’ total combined monthly income was reported on Schedule I as $4,799.12 and their total monthly expenses was reported on Schedule J as $4,835.00; resulting in a negative monthly balance of $35.87.

On June 6, 2006, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a No Asset Report. The Debtors filed the Motion for Approval of a Reaffirmation Agreement on June 20, 2006 and scheduled it for hearing on July 24, 2006. A copy of the Reaffirmation Agreement filed with the Court is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference. The Reaffirmation Agreement was signed by the Debtors on June 2, 2006. Pursuant to the Reaffirmation Agreement, the Debtors agreed to reaffirm their debt to Salem Federal Credit Union in the total amount of $10,887.86. 2 The Debtors agreed to repay this amount with interest at 12.25% by making biweekly payments of $192.00 to the credit union. Part D of the Reaffirmation Agreement contains the Debtors’ Statement in Support of Reaffirmation Agreement. The Debtors approved the following statement, which is intended for use if the creditor is a credit union and the debtors are represented by an attorney during the negotiation of the reaffirmation agreement 3 , by signing below it:

I believe this reaffirmation agreement is in my financial interest. I can afford to make the payments on the reaffirmed debt. I received a copy of the Reaffirmation Disclosure Statement in Part A and a completed and signed reaffirmation agreement.
*841 Signed: /s/ John Patrick Hoffman
/s/ Julie Hoffman
Date: 6-1-06

(Debtors’ Reaffirmation Agreement 8.) The Reaffirmation Agreement was not accompanied by a statement in accordance with Interim Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4008.

A hearing was held on the Debtors’ Motion on July 24, 2006 at which counsel for the Debtors and the male Debtor, John Hoffman, were present. Counsel for the Debtors explained that he was not willing to approve the reaffirmation agreement based on the Debtors’ Schedule J showing a negative monthly budget and was, therefore, requesting the Court to approve the reaffirmation agreement. The male Debt- or testified that the Debtors are current in their payments to Salem Federal Credit Union and that the Debtors have four years left on the loan. Mr. Hoffman stated that the payoff balance on the loan was $10,600.00 as of July 21, 2006 and that he understood that the vehicle was worth less than what was owed on it. He explained that the Debtors’ desire to reaffirm this debt is primarily because the female Debt- or’s mother is a co-signor on the loan. When asked about changes in the Debtors’ budget, Mr. Hoffman advised the Court that the only change in their budget was that the mortgage company had foreclosed on their house after filing bankruptcy. 4 Consequently, the Debtors’ budget no longer provided for payments to the mortgage company. As a result of the foreclosure, Mr. Hoffman is currently living with his parents and spending approximately $600 per month on housing. 5

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This Court has jurisdiction of this proceeding by virtue of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a) and the delegation made to this Court by Order from the District Court on July 24, 1984. The Court’s approval or disapproval of a reaffirmation agreement is a “core” bankruptcy matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (O).

The enforceability of a reaffirmation agreement is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 524. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) amended the provisions of § 524 with respect to reaffirmation agreements for consumer debts in cases filed on or after October 17, 2005. This case was filed on March 23, 2006. Accordingly, the provisions of BAPCPA regarding reaffirmation agreements apply in this case.

For a reaffirmation agreement to be enforceable, the agreement must satisfy the requirements of § 524(c). In a case in which the debtor is an individual “who was not represented by an attorney during the course of negotiating [the reaffirmation] agreement,” the Court must hold a hearing pursuant to § 524(d). If the debt to be reaffirmed is not based in whole or in part on a consumer debt secured by real property, the Court must determine whether to approve the reaffirmation agreement under § 524(c)(6)(A) as “(i) not imposing an undue hardship on the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; and (ii) in the best interest of the debtor.”

*842 Section 524(k) is a new subsection of § 524 added by BAPCPA. It sets out mandatory components of a reaffirmation agreement, which must be filed with the court in order for the reaffirmation agreement to be enforceable under § 523(c). One such component set forth in § 524(k)(3)(J) requires that the following statements be included in the reaffirmation agreement:

2. Complete and sign Part D and be sure you can afford to make the payments you are agreeing to make and have received a copy of the disclosure statement and a completed and signed reaffirmation agreement.
3. If you were represented by an attorney during the negotiation of your reaffirmation agreement, the attorney must have signed the certification in Part C.
4. If you were not represented by an attorney during the negotiation of your reaffirmation agreement, you must have completed and signed Part E.
7.

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

Related

In Re Harvey
452 B.R. 179 (W.D. Virginia, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 B.R. 839, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3841, 2006 WL 3909712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hoffman-vawb-2006.