Isaiah Lamar Hair, Sr. and Jalessa Keayna Hair

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
In re:
Isaiah Lamar Hair, Sr. and
Jalessa Hair, 	Case No. 20-27743-beh
Debtors. 	Chapter 13
DECISION AND ORDER
Having reason to believe a joint debtor filed a false certification regarding
domestic support obligations owed, the Chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to
deny that debtor’s discharge. After finding the certification to be false, the
Court considered whether the Code permits denial of discharge under this
circumstance. Weighing Code text, analysis of other courts, and the trustee’s
argument, the Court concludes that in this situation, the Code does not
provide for denial of discharge but does allow dismissal of the joint debtor’s
case without discharge.
Beth E. Hanan
United States Bankruptcy Judge
So Ordered.
Dated: August 27, 2026
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 8

Factual and Procedural Background
The debtors filed this case on December 1, 2020.1 The trustee filed his
Notice of Completion of Plan on April 16, 2026. ECF No. 134. Mr. Hair filed
Local Form 2831 bearing his certifications regarding domestic support
obligations, section 522(q), and completion of Chapter 13 payments, on April
28, 2026, ECF No. 137. He received his discharge later that same day, ECF No.
138. See In re Hernandez, No. 13-35389-hdh13, 2019 WL 642841, at *4
(Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2019) (recognizing that § 1328(a) permits a debtor to
receive a Chapter 13 discharge if requirements as to that debtor are met, even
if the requirements as to his joint debtor are not met.)
On May 6, 2026, Mr. Hair filed documentation regarding an alleged
domestic support obligation arrearage owed him by Ms. Hair. ECF No. 140. Ms.
Hair filed her Local Form 2831 on May 26, 2026, certifying that she owed no
domestic support obligations at the time that she filed this case, and has not
been required to pay any such obligations since then. ECF No. 143.
Because of the discrepancy between Mr. Hair’s filings and Ms. Hair’s
certifications, the Court held a preliminary hearing on June 16, 2026. Debtor
Isaiah Hair appeared, pro se, and counsel for the Chapter 13 trustee appeared.
Debtor Jalessa Hair did not appear. After some discussion the Court adjourned
the hearing to July 7 to give Ms. Hair a further opportunity to appear and the
trustee’s office time to consider how to proceed. In the interim, the Chapter 13
trustee filed a motion to deny Ms. Hair’s discharge based on alleged domestic
support arrearage and citing 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). ECF No. 150.
Ms. Hair appeared pro se via Zoom at the July 7 hearing. Mr. Hair also
appeared virtually, pro se, as did counsel for the Chapter 13 trustee. After
discussion the Court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on August 4,
2026.
1 The two were married and represented jointly by counsel at the time of filing. They later
initiated divorce proceedings, creating a conflict of interest and prompting the withdrawal of
counsel. See ECF No. 81.
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 8

August 4 evidentiary hearing
Debtor Jalessa Hair did not appear at the evidentiary hearing. The
Chapter 13 trustee’s counsel took testimony from Mr. Hair and offered three
exhibits into evidence—201, 202, and 203—of which the Court admitted two
(202 and 203), and took judicial notice of the third (201). Mr. Hair testified
regarding Ms. Hair’s domestic support obligations. He described that there is a
state court child support order which requires Ms. Hair to pay him about
$2,200.00 per month. Mr. Hair also testified that there has not been a time
since the two divorced in 2023 that Ms. Hair has not owed a child support
obligation to him.2
Mr. Hair then testified regarding exhibit 202. ECF No. 161, at 63. This
exhibit is a printout of a webpage that Mr. Hair can access through his child
support services account. The webpage identifies Jalessa Hair as “payer” and
Isaiah Hair as “payee.” Id. It lists a monthly payment of $2,162.00 for current
child support and a monthly payment of $100.00 for custodial arrears. Id.
Mr. Hair also testified as to exhibit 203. ECF No. 161, at 65. This is
another webpage that Mr. Hair can access through his child support services
account. The webpage is labeled “Balances,” and Mr. Hair testified that it
shows the total amount of child support arrears owed to him by Ms. Hair, as
well as the amount of child support owed to him monthly. The arrearage owed
by Ms. Hair to Mr. Hair as of July 14, 2026 (not including interest) is listed at
$45,042.97. Mr. Hair testified that Ms. Hair owed close to that amount as of
May 26, 2026, the date Ms. Hair filed her Form 2831.
Ms. Hair did not appear at the evidentiary hearing to offer any evidence
of her own, nor has she argued at any point that these are not the type of
domestic support obligations contemplated by section 1328(a). For these
reasons, the Court’s factual findings herein are not in dispute.
2 Exhibit 201, of which the Court took judicial notice, is a photocopy of the online docket for
Isaiah Hair and Jalessa Hair’s family law case in Milwaukee County Court, Case No.
2022FA005055.
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 8

Analysis—1328(a)
Section 1328(a) states:
Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion
by the debtor of all payments under the plan, and in the case of a
debtor who is required by a judicial or administrative order, or by
statute, to pay a domestic support obligation, after such debtor
certifies that all amounts payable under such order or such statute
that are due on or before the date of the certification (including
amounts due before the petition was filed, but only to the extent
provided for by the plan) have been paid, unless the court approves
a written waiver of discharge executed by the debtor after the order
for relief under this chapter, the court shall grant the debtor a
discharge of all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under
section 502 of this title [with exceptions not relevant here].
11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) (emphasis added).
Section 1328(a) mandates that a debtor be current on all domestic
support obligations as a prerequisite to receiving a Chapter 13 discharge. See
In re Reed, No. 08-50593, 2014 WL 132106, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Jan. 14,
2014) (“As a condition of discharge under chapter 13, a debtor who is required
by order or statute to pay a domestic support obligation must certify that all
amounts due on or before the date of certification have been paid. 11 U.S.C.
§ 1328(a).”). Notwithstanding this condition of discharge, “the Court has no
independent means of verifying whether a debtor is current on domestic
support obligations disclosed in his or her petition and plan or whether a
debtor has incurred a domestic support obligation since the filing of the case.”
In re Sims, No. 06-62756, 2008 WL 7842067, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. May 1,
2008). The verification inquiry here results from the Chapter 13 trustee’s
motion to deny discharge. Based on the evidence, the Court finds that Ms.
Hair’s certification that she was not required to pay a domestic support
obligation at any point since the filing of this bankruptcy was false. The Court
also finds that Ms. Hair was required by court order to pay a domestic support
obligation when she made her 1328(a) certification, and that she was not
current on her obligations at the time she filed that certification.
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 8

Next the Court considers the consequence of a debtor’s false certification.
Section 1328(a) does not contain any express direction to address a debtor’s
delinquent support obligations at the time she files her certification. Instead, it
only directs that the court should grant a discharge once debtor certifies all her
domestic support obligations have been paid. Several courts have considered,
directly or indirectly, whether the Code affords authority to deny a Chapter 13
debtor her discharge. At least one court has pointed out that there is no
Chapter 13 analog to 11 U.S.C. § 727, the denial of discharge provision for
Chapter 7 cases.3 That court reasoned that Congress’s express inclusion of
such a provision in § 727(a) implicitly excludes denial of discharge in a Chapter
13 case. See William Iselin & Co., Inc. v. Lewis (In re Brian Price Lewis), 5 B.R.
575, 576 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1980). The Lewis court addressed a creditor’s
adversary complaint seeking to deny a Chapter 13 discharge based on money
owed under a factoring agreement. The court ruled “[the fact t]hat there is no
section under Chapter 13 enumerating exceptions to a debtor’s discharge or
incorporating into this Chapter the exceptions to discharge specified in Section
727 evinces an intention on the part of Congress to exclude such a provision.”
As for plaintiff’s request that the court deny debtor a discharge, the court
refused, finding no provision in Chapter 13 of the Code to permit objecting to
the discharge of a debtor. In re Lewis, 5 B.R. at 578.
Some 40 years after the Lewis decision, bankruptcy courts still view the
opportunity to preclude discharge of some or all debts in a Chapter 13 case as
extremely narrow. The court in Johnson v. Johnson (In re Johson), No. 22-
54152, Adv. No. 22-5125, 2023 WL 5156369, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. August
10, 2023) explained, “[i]n cases under Chapter 13, Section 1328 provides the
basis for a debtor’s discharge with limited exceptions. There is no basis for
asserting an objection to discharge on the grounds listed in Section 727, such
33 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) provides that the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless one of
the grounds set out in § 727(a)(1) through (12) applies.
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 8

as concealing property or failing to disclose information regarding property . . .
.”
This Court’s research has yielded several instances where courts have
avoided the question of whether a motion to deny a Chapter 13 discharge can
be granted and simply have chosen to close a debtor’s case without granting
her discharge. The Reed court was presented with circumstances similar to
those here. Debtor Ms. Reed made all payments required to complete her
Chapter 13 plan and filed a certification that her domestic support obligations
were current as of that date. 2014 WL 132106, at *1. Mr. Reed, a creditor,
alleged that in fact debtor was thousands of dollars in arrears on her
obligations and asked the court to deny her discharge. Id. Upon the court’s
finding that Ms. Reed was in arrears on her domestic support obligations to
Mr. Reed, the court determined, by invoking its equitable power, that the most
appropriate next step was to close the case without granting a discharge to Ms.
Reed. Id at *2. The Reed court did not address whether the text of § 1328(a)
authorized denial of discharge in appropriate circumstances.
Other courts have found it appropriate to close a Chapter 13 case
without granting a discharge when a debtor fails to file the certification
necessary under section 1328(a). See, e.g., In re Nasralla, 653 B.R. 247, 249
(Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2023) (considering a six-year delay in filing a motion to
reopen, the court noted that “[t]he case was closed on February 22, 2017,
without a discharge as to both Debtors, due to both of the Debtors’ failure to
timely file ‘the Local Form Certification Regarding Domestic Support
Obligations’.”); In re Sims, 2008 WL 7842067, at *2 (order directing debtor to
file 11 U.S.C. § 1328 certificate regarding domestic obligations to prevent his
case from being closed without a discharge); see also, ECF No. 135 in this case
(notice to the debtors of the need to file Local Form 2831 by a specific deadline,
and adding: “If you do not file Local Form 2831 by this deadline, the Court may
close your case without granting a discharge.”).
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 6 of 8

In contrast, one bankruptcy court warned that it would enter an order
denying a § 1328(a) discharge if the debtors did not refile a plan modification
by a date certain. In re Villarreal, 639 B.R. 427 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2022). There,
the debtors’ plan required them to pay future taxes directly to their county and
school district. Id at 433. The debtors failed to make those tax payments from
2017 through 2020 which led to a post-confirmation mortgage modification
and a tax advance from their mortgage lender. Id at 434. Because the debtors
never modified their plan to remove their direct tax payments, the court found
they had failed to make payments under the plan. Id at 435. The Villareal court
determined that the debtors’ section 1328(a) certifications affirming their
completion of “all payments under the plan” were false. Id at 439. In light of
that falsity, the court denied the debtors’ request for entry of discharge and
explained that debtors who do not complete all payments under the plan per
section 1328(a) are not entitled to a Chapter 13 discharge. Id at 440. The court
did not expressly examine the text of § 1328(a) to consider whether it provided
authority to deny a Chapter 13 discharge, or whether its warning only forecast
a possible case closure without discharge.
Adhering to a distinction between denial of discharge in a Chapter 13
case and closure without discharge is more than a semantical exercise. The
Lewis court respected Congress’ choice to set out multiple bases for denying
discharge in § 727(a) but only providing very limited bases for non-
dischargeability of certain debts in § 1328(a). The Lewis decision was issued 25
years before Congress enacted BAPCPA, a law which included changes to
§ 1328. The 2005 change, which inserted the DSO payment requirement into
the text of § 1328(a), did not change the law that DSO debts are non-
dischargeable, but also did not create a basis to object to the debtor’s broader
discharge.
Post-Lewis, it appears that most courts faced with false § 1328(a)
certifications have concluded there can be no Chapter 13 discharge, and thus,
the case must be closed without one. See, e.g. Reed, Nasralla, Sims. This
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 7 of 8

Court’s Local Form 2831 warns of that very outcome – closure of the case
without discharge. Moreover, the bankruptcy rules direct that a proceeding to
revoke or object to a discharge must, with limited exceptions, be commenced
via an adversary proceeding. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(d). In contrast, closure
without discharge for false or absent certifications can occur without the
litigation process of a Rule 7001 adversary proceeding. And, closure without
discharge can permit, in the proper case, a later motion to reopen under
§ 350(b).4
Because Ms. Hair owes approximately $45,000.00 in domestic support
obligations and falsely certified on Local Form 2831 that she had no domestic
support obligations owing at the time of her certification, this Court will take
the same approach as the Lewis, Reed, Sims and Nasralla courts. Instead of
granting the trustee’s original request to deny Ms. Hair’s discharge, the Court
will order the case closed without discharge.
By docketing this decision, the Court also is providing a copy to the U.S.
Trustee, for his review and whatever action he might deem appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: This case be closed with no discharge granted
to joint debtor Jalessa Hair.
#####
4 By mentioning § 350(b), this Court in no way predicts the merits of any future motion.
Case 20-27743-beh Doc 168 Filed 08/27/26 Page 8 of 8