Case No. 10-60211.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
June 24, 2011
ORDER DENYING DEBTORS’ MOTION TO REOPEN THIS BANKRUPTCY CASE
THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge
This case is before the Court on a motion filed by Debtors entitled “Ex Parte Motion to Reopen Case to Enter a Reaffirmation and For Debtors To File a Motion Against Creditor Chase Home Mortgage for Stay Violation” (Docket # 18, the “Motion”). The Motion seeks to reopen the bankruptcy case for the purpose of: (1) filing a reaffirmation agreement between Debtor and Chase Home Mortgage (“Chase”); and (2) “possibly” filing a motion for sanctions based on an alleged stay violation by Chase, “once the reaffirmation agreement has been entered.” The Motion correctly notes that the Court granted Debtors a discharge on September 28, 2011. (See “Discharge of Joint Debtors” (Docket # 16).) The Court concludes that the Motion fails to demonstrate that there is cause to reopen the case, for the following reasons.
First, 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.” Because Debtors were granted a discharge under section 727 before any reaffirmation agreement between Debtors and Chase was made, any reaffirmation agreement made now between these parties would be unenforceable. For this reason, the Motion fails to demonstrate that any purpose would be served by reopening the case for the purpose of filing a reaffirmation agreement.
Second, the mere possibility that Debtors may file a motion for sanctions against Chase
Page 2
also does not demonstrate cause to reopen the case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 18), is denied.