Case 16-00280 Doc 287 Filed 07/26/17 Entered 07/26/17 15:29:40 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 5
The document below is hereby signed.

Signed: July 26, 2017

___________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

In re )
)
LATRICIA LEE HARDY, ) Case No. 16-00280
) (Chapter 7)
Debtor. )
) Not for publication in
) West’s Bankruptcy Reporter.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEBTOR’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

The debtor has filed a motion to dismiss her chapter 7 case,

titled Motion to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 282). The debtor appears

to cite four grounds for dismissing her case: (1) her failure to

file a certificate demonstrating her participation in a post-

petition personal financial management instructional course, as

required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(7); (2) her failure to turn

over to the trustee her federal tax returns for 2013, 2014, 2015,

and 2016; (3) her failure to file a list of her 20 largest

creditors, as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(d); and (4) the

U.S. Trustee’s failure to hold a § 341 meeting of creditors in a

timely manner. None of these grounds justifies dismissal.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(7)(A) requires an individual

debtor in a chapter 7 or chapter 13 case to file a statement

certifying his or her post-petition completion of an

instructional course in personal financial management. The court

declines to dismiss the debtor’s case on the basis of failure to

file a certificate of completion of a personal financial

management course. Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(11) and Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 4004(c)(1)(H), completion of a personal financial

management course is a predicate for receiving a discharge. If a

debtor does not file a certificate of completion of a personal

financial management course, the consequence is that the debtor

will not receive a discharge, not that the debtor’s case will be

dismissed. The failure to file such a certificate provides no

cause for dismissing the case.

Similarly, while the debtor is required to turn over to the

trustee tax returns for certain years pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 521(e)(2)(A) and § 521(f), the court will not automatically

dismiss the case on the motion of the debtor based on her failure

to turn over tax returns. As stated in Hickman v. Hana (In re

Hickman), 384 B.R. 832, 842 (9th Cir. BAP 2008), “a debtor is not

entitled to escape by awarding himself a dismissal . . . by

declining to perform his statutory duties . . . .” See also In

re On, No. 10-47541 EDJ, 2010 WL 5394804, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.

Dec. 28, 2010) (quoting In re Hickman, 384 B.R. at 842). In any

2
Case 16-00280 Doc 287 Filed 07/26/17 Entered 07/26/17 15:29:40 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

event, the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), which govern

dismissal of a chapter 7 case, require a showing of cause before

a case will be dismissed. Sections 521(e)(2) and (f) were not

enacted for the benefit of the debtor and thus do not provide

cause, for § 707(a) purposes, for dismissing the case on the

debtor’s own motion. See In re On, 2010 WL 5394804, at *2-3.

The trustee is pursuing liquidation of assets for the benefit of

creditors and administrative claimants, and a dismissal would be

adverse to the interest of creditors and administrative

claimants. Thus, the debtor has not shown cause for dismissing

this case based on her own wrongs.1

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(d), the debtor’s third basis for

dismissal, does not apply in voluntary chapter 7 cases.2 Rule

1007(d) requires a debtor in a chapter 9 municipality case or in

1
In her Motion to Show Cause, the debtor stated that “[n]o
Chapter 7 schedules were ever done” but she did not further
develop that contention. If the debtor meant to refer to
Schedules A/B-J, she filed such schedules in her chapter 13 case
before it was converted to chapter 7 and those schedules still
exist in her chapter 7 case. If she is referring to a schedule
of debts incurred post-petition and prior to conversion that she
was required to file under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1019(5)(B)(i), her
misconduct in failing to comply with that rule—as in the case of
her misconduct in failing to provide tax returns as required by
§ 521(e)(2) and (f)—does not establish cause for dismissing the
case on the debtor’s own motion.
2
In her Motion to Show Cause, the debtor repeats her
inaccurate contention that this is an involuntary chapter 7 case.
The debtor filed a voluntary chapter 13 petition and her case was
later converted to chapter 7. That does not constitute an
involuntary chapter 7 case.

3
 Case 16-00280 Doc 287 Filed 07/26/17 Entered 07/26/17 15:29:40 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

a voluntary chapter 11 case to file with the petition a list of

creditors with the 20 largest unsecured claims. The debtor

originally filed a chapter 13 petition and her case was later

converted to chapter 7. Rule 1007(d) is thus irrelevant to this

case.

Finally, the timing of the § 341 meeting of creditors in the

debtor’s case does not constitute cause for dismissing the

debtor’s case. Both when the case was pending in chapter 13 and

after the case was converted to chapter 7, the § 341 meeting was

scheduled within the time limits set forth in Fed. R. Bankr. P.

2003.3 That the debtor failed to attend the meeting of creditors

does not constitute cause to dismiss the case on the debtor’s own

3
In a chapter 13 case, the § 341 meeting of creditors must
be held between 21 and 50 days after the order for relief. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2003(a). In a voluntary chapter 7 case, the
§ 341 meeting of creditors must be held between 21 and 40 days
after the order for relief. See id. The debtor filed her
chapter 13 petition on May 31, 2016. See Dkt. No. 1. Her § 341
meeting of creditors in the chapter 13 case was then scheduled
for July 11, 2016 (within 50 days of the debtor’s filing of her
chapter 13 petition). The debtor’s case was converted from
chapter 13 to chapter 7 on July 25, 2017. See Dkt. No. 47. The
§ 341 meeting of creditors for debtor’s chapter 7 case was then
scheduled for September 1, 2016 (within 40 days of the conversion
of the debtor’s case on July 25, 2016). See Dkt. No. 48.

4
 Case 16-00280 Doc 287 Filed 07/26/17 Entered 07/26/17 15:29:40 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5

motion.4 Even if the meeting of creditors had been scheduled

beyond the Rule 2003 time limit, it is doubtful that such a

failure would ever be a basis for dismissing a case. In any

event, this case has progressed to the point that cause would not

exist to dismiss the case based on such a failure.

It is thus

ORDERED that the debtor’s Motion to Show Cause (Dkt. No.

282) is DENIED.

[Signed and dated above.]

Copies to: Debtor; recipients of e-notification of orders.

4
In her Motion to Show Cause, the debtor acknowledged that
she did not attend the § 341 meeting when her case was pending in
Chapter 13. The debtor also neglected to attend the first
scheduled § 341 meeting of creditors after her case was converted
to chapter 7. On September 2, 2016, the chapter 7 trustee filed
a motion to compel the debtor to attend the chapter 7 § 341
meeting of creditors, which was continued to September 26, 2016
because the debtor had failed to appear at the § 341 meeting of
creditors on September 1, 2016, “despite notice and reminders
from the trustee.” See Dkt. No. 75, at 1. The court granted the
chapter 7 trustee’s motion and ordered the debtor to attend the
§ 341 meeting of creditors on September 26, 2016. See Dkt. No.
89. The § 341 meeting of creditors was then successfully
conducted on that date. Thus, there has been no violation of
Rule 2003(a).

R:\Common\TeelSM\MSB\Big Cases\LaTricia Lee Hardy\Order re Motion to Show Cause_LaTricia Lee Hardy_v3.wpd