Thomas J. Tucker
Judge Thomas J. Tucker
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION TO REOPEN BANKRUPTCY CASE
On July 31, 2011, Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7. On November 8, 2011, the Court entered an order granting Debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. On November 14, 2011, the bankruptcy case was closed.
On January 3, 2012, Debtor filed an amended motion entitled "Amended Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy Estate to Allow the Filing of a Reaffirmation Agreement with CitiMortgage, Inc." (Docket # 20, the "Motion"). The Motion seeks to reopen the bankruptcy case for the purpose of entering into and filing a reaffirmation agreement between Debtor and CitiMortgage, Inc. (Motion at ¶ 9.)
The Motion amends and supercedes the motion entitled "Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy Estate to Allow the Filing of a Reaffirmation Agreement with CitiMortgage, Inc.," filed on December 27, 2011 at Docket # 17.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1), a reaffirmation agreement is not enforceable unless it "was made before the granting of the discharge under section 727." The Motion does not indicate that a reaffirmation agreement between Debtor and CitiMortgage, Inc. was made before Debtor was granted a discharge. For this reason, the Motion fails to show that there can be any enforceable reaffirmation agreement between these parties in this case. Therefore, no cause is shown to reopen this bankruptcy case.
The Court further notes that the deadline to file a reaffirmation agreement is established by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4008(a) — the deadline is "no later than 60 days after the date first set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a) of the Code." In this case, the deadline was November 7, 2011. Rule 4008(a) also provides that the Court may extend this deadline. But Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4004(c)(1)(J) contemplates that such a motion to extend can only be granted if the discharge has not yet been granted. See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4004 advisory committee notes to 2008 Amendments ("Rule 4004(c)(1)(J) accommodates . . . an extension [of time for filing a reaffirmation agreement] by providing for a delay in the entry of discharge during the pendency of a motion to extend the time for filing a reaffirmation agreement."). No motion to extend the deadline for filing a reaffirmation agreement was filed in this case. Because the discharge was granted, on November 8, 2011, it is now too late for such a motion to extend.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 20) is denied.
_________________
Thomas J. Tucker
United States Bankruptcy Judge