IN RE KOCHE

THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge

This case is before the Court on Debtor's "Motion For Approval Of Reaffirmation Agreement," filed on November 29, 2007 (Docket # 19), seeking approval of two separate reaffirmation agreements between Debtor and American Honda Finance Corporation (Docket ## 11, 13).

The first reaffirmation agreement was filed on October 24 2007 (Docket # 11). At the time the Court reviewed this reaffirmation agreement, the Court determined that there was a presumption of undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 524(m)(1) based on Debtor's Schedules I and J, which showed that Debtor's monthly expenses exceeded his monthly income by $2,117.00. Therefore, on October 30, 2007, the Court scheduled a hearing on the reaffirmation agreement for November 28, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The notice of this hearing was served electronically on Debtor's attorney on October 3, 2007 (Docket # 13). In addition, the notice of hearing was served by mail by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center on November 1, 2007, on Debtor's attorney, Debtor, and American Honda Finance. (Docket # 14). On November 28, 2007, the Court held a hearing on the reaffirmation agreement, but no one appeared. At the hearing, the Court had questions to ask of Debtor and/or Debtor's counsel about this reaffirmation agreement. But because no one appeared at the hearing, the Court entered a text order disapproving the reaffirmation agreement, on November 28, 2007 (Docket # 18).

The second reaffirmation agreement was filed on October 31, 2007 (Docket # 13). By the time the Court reviewed this reaffirmation agreement, Debtor had filed Amended Schedules I and J. (See Docket # 15 (November 2, 2007).) The Amended Schedules I and J showed that there was no presumption of undue hardship because Debtor's monthly income exceeded his monthly expenses by $65.00. Therefore, the Court entered an "Order Denying As Unnecessary Debtor's Motion For Approval Of Reaffirmation Agreement" (Docket # 17).

Because the Court has already issued orders regarding both of the reaffirmation agreements for which Debtor seeks relief in his motion, the Court construes Debtor's motion as a motion for reconsideration of those orders. The Court finds the motion fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. See Local Rule 9024-1(c). In particular, the motion fails to explain or excuse the failure of Debtor and Debtor's counsel to attend the November 28, 2007 hearing. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Debtor's "Motion For Approval Of Reaffirmation Agreement" (Docket # 19) is DENIED, without prejudice to the filing of a properly-supported motion for reconsideration of the November 28, 2007 text order that disapproved the reaffirmation agreement at Docket # 11.