PAUL SNYDER, Bankruptcy Judge
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Todd J. Spalding's and Becky Spalding's (Debtors) Application for Extension of Time to Complete Credit Counseling (Application). The Debtors filed a petition with the Court on April 26, 2006. The Debtors now seeks an extension of time to complete the credit counseling requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h). The Application was filed with the Court on May 4, 2007, and stated that the Debtors had contacted Alliance Credit Counseling, Inc. on April 26, 2007, by telephone. The Application further stated: "We needed to wait until payday to mail a $75.00 money order to the counseling company. . . . We need to call Alliance Credit Counseling Inc. in 4-5 days to check on our payment. When they receive it, they can register us online." The Application provided no other exigent circumstances or information as to the necessity of filing the petition prior to receiving credit counseling.
Approved credit counseling agencies are required to provide services without regard to ability to pay a fee. See 11 U.S.C. § 111.
Unfortunately, the Debtors' Application does not satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h). A debtor must satisfy the requirements under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3) by submitting certification to the Court that (1) describes the "exigent circumstances" that would merit an extension; (2) provides information as to the debtor's contact with an approved credit counseling agency and that the debtor was "unable to obtain the services . . . during the 5-day period beginning on the date" that the debtor made the request; and (3) is "satisfactory to the court." 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3)(A). See e.g. In re Dixon, 338 B.R. 383 (8th Cir. BAP 2006); see also In re Mingueta, 338 B.R. 833 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2006); In re Ross, 338 B.R. 134 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2006); In re Rodriguez, 336 B.R. 462, 475 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2005) (debtor not granted a "pass on the counseling requirement" under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) "due to an impending foreclosure [or] garnishment").
The U.S. Trustee has not made a determination that "approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agencies for [the Western District of Washington] are not reasonably able to provide adequate services." 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(2)(A). A list of approved agencies is made available to the public by the Clerk of the Court for this District as required by 11 U.S.C. § 111(a).
The Debtors' Application stated that they first sought counseling on the same date as they filed their petition (April 26, 2007) and that they were not able to take the course until after they received money to pay the agency's fee. The Debtors have not provided information such as the name(s) of the approved credit counseling agency contacted to provide the briefing services referred to in 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1), the date(s) the agency was contacted, or how the agency was contacted (in person, telephone or internet) prior to their filing the petition. "It is the clear expectation of the statute that all individual debtors receive . . . a briefing prior to filing." Dixon, 338 B.R. at 386. Approved credit counseling agencies are required to provide services without regard to ability to pay a fee. See 11 U.S.C. § 111.
It is unfortunate that the strict requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) apply, even though the Debtors appear to have now sought to take the requisite credit counseling. The law, however, is clear in providing that the credit counseling must take place prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, or the strict extension requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3) met. Although it may not be logical or financially prudent, the only alternative may now be for the Debtors to file yet another bankruptcy petition, as this Court is required to adhere to the statutory requirements as promulgated by Congress.
The Court having reviewed the Application and the pleadings on file; and deeming itself fully advised, makes the following findings:
1. That there are numerous approved credit counseling agencies available in the Western District of Washington that provide such credit counseling services by means of telephone or internet.
2. That the Debtors have not met the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3), as the Debtors have not provided certification (1) of exigent circumstances and (2) that is satisfactory to this Court to merit such an extension.
Comments