FEDERAL · 11 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER III—ADMINISTRATION
Effect of dismissal
11 U.S.C. § 349
Title11 — Bankruptcy
ChapterSUBCHAPTER III—ADMINISTRATION
This text of 11 U.S.C. § 349 (Effect of dismissal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
11 U.S.C. § 349.
Text
(a)Unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.
(b)Unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise, a dismissal of a case other than under section 742 of this title—
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
B.N. Realty Associates v. Lichtenstein
21 A.D.3d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Iannini v. Winnecour
487 B.R. 434 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2012)
Norton v. Hoxie State Bank
61 B.R. 258 (D. Kansas, 1986)
In Re Morris
950 F.2d 1531 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
Montelione v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
183 F. App'x 200 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Williams v. Marshall
526 B.R. 695 (N.D. Illinois, 2014)
In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation
499 B.R. 310 (S.D. New York, 2013)
Mosely v. Mosely (In re Mosely)
577 B.R. 419 (N.D. Georgia, 2017)
In re Newton
490 B.R. 126 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Southerland v. Milam
187 B.R. 740 (M.D. Florida, 1995)
In re Thompson
224 B.R. 360 (N.D. Texas, 1998)
City Bank v. Industrial Bank NA
178 F. App'x 409 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Sternitzky, Jon v. State Bank Financial
(W.D. Wisconsin, 2022)
Free v. Baas
572 So. 2d 26 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
In re: White
(D. Connecticut, 2024)
Hansler, Joseph A. v. Nueces County, Texas and Calame, Linebarger, Graham & Pena, L.L.P.
(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
in Re: Robert E. De La Garza
(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Koger v. Usoroh
(W.D. Pennsylvania, 2025)
Lorenzo P Quesnel, Jr. and Amy Quesnel
(D. Vermont, 2025)
Anwar Ibrahim v. Goshen Mortgage REO, LLC
(First Circuit, 2019)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2569; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, §303, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 103–394, title V, §501(d)(6), Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4144.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
legislative statements
Section 349(b)(2) of the House amendment adds a cross reference to section 553 to reflect the new right of recovery of setoffs created under that section. Corresponding changes are made throughout the House amendment.
senate report no. 95–989
Subsection (a) specifies that unless the court for cause orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case is without prejudice. The debtor is not barred from receiving a discharge in a later case of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed. Of course, this subsection refers only to pre-discharge dismissals. If the debtor has already received a discharge and it is not revoked, then the debtor would be barred under section 727(a) from receiving a discharge in a subsequent liquidation case for six years. Dismissal of an involuntary on the merits will generally not give rise to adequate cause so as to bar the debtor from further relief.
Subsection (b) specifies that the dismissal reinstates proceedings or custodianships that were superseded by the bankruptcy case, reinstates avoided transfers, reinstates voided liens, vacates any order, judgment, or transfer ordered as a result of the avoidance of a transfer, and revests the property of the estate in the entity in which the property was vested at the commencement of the case. The court is permitted to order a different result for cause. The basic purpose of the subsection is to undo the bankruptcy case, as far as practicable, and to restore all property rights to the position in which they were found at the commencement of the case. This does not necessarily encompass undoing sales of property from the estate to a good faith purchaser. Where there is a question over the scope of the subsection, the court will make the appropriate orders to protect rights acquired in reliance on the bankruptcy case.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–394 substituted "109(g)" for "109(f)".
1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353 inserted "; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(f) of this title".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 103–394 effective Oct. 22, 1994, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before Oct. 22, 1994, see section 702 of Pub. L. 103–394, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
Effective Date of 1984 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
legislative statements
Section 349(b)(2) of the House amendment adds a cross reference to section 553 to reflect the new right of recovery of setoffs created under that section. Corresponding changes are made throughout the House amendment.
senate report no. 95–989
Subsection (a) specifies that unless the court for cause orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case is without prejudice. The debtor is not barred from receiving a discharge in a later case of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed. Of course, this subsection refers only to pre-discharge dismissals. If the debtor has already received a discharge and it is not revoked, then the debtor would be barred under section 727(a) from receiving a discharge in a subsequent liquidation case for six years. Dismissal of an involuntary on the merits will generally not give rise to adequate cause so as to bar the debtor from further relief.
Subsection (b) specifies that the dismissal reinstates proceedings or custodianships that were superseded by the bankruptcy case, reinstates avoided transfers, reinstates voided liens, vacates any order, judgment, or transfer ordered as a result of the avoidance of a transfer, and revests the property of the estate in the entity in which the property was vested at the commencement of the case. The court is permitted to order a different result for cause. The basic purpose of the subsection is to undo the bankruptcy case, as far as practicable, and to restore all property rights to the position in which they were found at the commencement of the case. This does not necessarily encompass undoing sales of property from the estate to a good faith purchaser. Where there is a question over the scope of the subsection, the court will make the appropriate orders to protect rights acquired in reliance on the bankruptcy case.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–394 substituted "109(g)" for "109(f)".
1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353 inserted "; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(f) of this title".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 103–394 effective Oct. 22, 1994, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before Oct. 22, 1994, see section 702 of Pub. L. 103–394, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
Effective Date of 1984 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
11 U.S.C. § 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/11/349.