In Re Solomon

E.D. Pennsylvania

In Re Solomon

15 B.R. 105, 5 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 613, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2739

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 22, 1981

Docket19-11355

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 15 B.R. 105 (In Re Solomon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Solomon, 15 B.R. 105, 5 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 613, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2739 (Pa. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

*106 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

WILLIAM A. KING, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge:

The instant case is before us on the application of the debtors for a hearing on the approval of a reaffirmation agreement filed three days after the debtors received a discharge at their discharge hearing. The application is based on Interim Rule 4004 which requires the court to hold a hearing under § 524(d) of the Bankruptcy Code 2 within 30 days of the entry of an order granting or denying a discharge. Since the debtors filed their application only three days after their discharge, they assert there is still plenty of time for a hearing under § 524(d) to consider the reaffirmation agreement.

We conclude, however, that the debtors have already had the hearing required by § 524(d). It is the practice of this court to enter an order granting or denying a discharge at the time of the actual § 524(d) hearing. It is that hearing which the debtors herein have already had. Therefore, because a reaffirmation agreement must be approved by the court at the time of the § 524(d) hearing, it is too late for such approval in this case.

However, the debtors raise several reasons why their reaffirmation agreement should be approved. The agreement is in settlement of litigation with a secured creditor and is, the debtors assert, in their best interests. Further, the litigation between the debtors and the creditor was started a little more than a month before the discharge hearing and was not settled before that hearing. As a result, we conclude that there are sufficient equities in the instant case for us to vacate our prior order granting the debtors’ discharge and to reschedule the § 524(d) hearing.

1

. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 752 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

2

. Section 524(d) requires the court to hold a hearing to inform the debtor whether his discharge is granted or denied and to approve or disapprove any reaffirmation agreements made by the debtor.

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

*106 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

WILLIAM A. KING, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge:

The instant case is before us on the application of the debtors for a hearing on the approval of a reaffirmation agreement filed three days after the debtors received a discharge at their discharge hearing. The application is based on Interim Rule 4004 which requires the court to hold a hearing under § 524(d) of the Bankruptcy Code 2 within 30 days of the entry of an order granting or denying a discharge. Since the debtors filed their application only three days after their discharge, they assert there is still plenty of time for a hearing under § 524(d) to consider the reaffirmation agreement.

We conclude, however, that the debtors have already had the hearing required by § 524(d). It is the practice of this court to enter an order granting or denying a discharge at the time of the actual § 524(d) hearing. It is that hearing which the debtors herein have already had. Therefore, because a reaffirmation agreement must be approved by the court at the time of the § 524(d) hearing, it is too late for such approval in this case.

However, the debtors raise several reasons why their reaffirmation agreement should be approved. The agreement is in settlement of litigation with a secured creditor and is, the debtors assert, in their best interests. Further, the litigation between the debtors and the creditor was started a little more than a month before the discharge hearing and was not settled before that hearing. As a result, we conclude that there are sufficient equities in the instant case for us to vacate our prior order granting the debtors’ discharge and to reschedule the § 524(d) hearing.

1

. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 752 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

2

. Section 524(d) requires the court to hold a hearing to inform the debtor whether his discharge is granted or denied and to approve or disapprove any reaffirmation agreements made by the debtor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 B.R. 105, 5 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 613, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-solomon-paeb-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack