Nicole Francis Bowles and Matthew Wayne Bowles

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
Nicole Francis Bowles
Matthew Wayne Bowles,
Debtors.
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 26-30804
Chapter 7
Judge Crist
ORDER DENYING APPROVAL OF REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT
WITH WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION, INC. (DOC. 13)
I. 	Introduction
On April 22, 2026, Creditor Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc. (the “Credit Union”) filed a
Reaffirmation Agreement (Doc. 13) (Form 2400A (12/15) (the “Reaffirmation Agreement”)
entered into by Nicole Francis Bowles (“Ms. Bowles”) and Matthew Wayne Bowles (together, the
“Debtors”), appearing pro se, with the Credit Union, along with the Cover Sheet for Reaffirmation
Agreement (Official Form 427). Under the Reaffirmation Agreement, both Ms. Bowles and Mr.
Bowles would reaffirm an “unsecured Q Cash loan” in the principal amount of $594.51, arising
from an original loan of $1,341.00 from the Credit Union at an interest rate of 17.00% payable
over 24 months, on which only Ms. Bowles was obligated according to the Loan Agreement and
Consumer Credit Disclosure Statement that was attached to the Reaffirmation Agreement. Mr. and
Ms. Bowles stated that the unsecured Q Cash loan was taken to help them “get by” and that Ms.
Bowles wanted to repay this debt. As an unsecured loan, however, this was an unusual
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 13, 2026
Case 3:26-bk-30804 Doc 22 Filed 08/13/26 Entered 08/13/26 13:31:07 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
Reaffirmation Agreement subject to close scrutiny. For the reasons stated on the record, and as
supplemented in this Order, approval of the Reaffirmation Agreement was, and hereby is, denied.
As stated at the hearing, the Debtors may voluntarily repay this debt if they so choose, but it would
not be in their best interests to reaffirm this debt and except it from their discharge.
II. Background
Pursuant to the Court’s Order Setting Hearing on Reaffirmation Agreement Between Pro
Se Debtors and Creditor Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc. (Doc. 13), and Ordering Other Matters
(Doc. 19), the Court held a hearing on August 5, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. (Eastern Prevailing Time) in
accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6) and (d), on notice to the parties to this case. The Debtors
appeared in person. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Credit Union.
Through the Reaffirmation Agreement, the Debtors would be obligated to pay $594.51
with interest at the fixed rate of 17.00% on the unsecured Q Cash loan through payments of $66.19
per month for ten (10) months; however, as the name suggests, this loan is not secured by any
collateral. See Cover Sheet for Reaff. Agmt. at 1, Part 1, item 5; Schedule E/F at 12 (Doc. 1 at 35),
Part 2, item 4.31 (listing a nonpriority unsecured debt of $645.00 to the Credit Union for a bank
loan). And Debtors stated at the hearing that although the Credit Union had temporarily frozen
their accounts upon filing bankruptcy, the freeze was soon lifted and none of the funds in their
accounts were the funds in the accounts when they filed bankruptcy. Further, the Debtors could
not identify a tangible benefit that they would realize by virtue of reaffirming this debt with the
Credit Union. Simply, the Debtors have had a good experience and relationship with the Credit
Union, so Ms. Bowles wanted to repay this debt. When asked at the hearing whether either of the
Debtors had discussed this loan or the Reaffirmation Agreement with anyone at the Credit Union
or had been told what might happen if they did not enter into this Reaffirmation Agreement, the
Debtors said they had not discussed it and, as far as they knew, nothing would happen. They also
had not spoken to, and did not know, Mary Bergman, who signed the Reaffirmation Agreement
on behalf of the Credit Union.
According to Debtors’ Schedules I and J (Doc. 1 at 40-45) and the income and expenses
stated in the Reaffirmation Agreement, which were exactly the same, the Debtors would have a
modest net monthly income of approximately $365.99 if they were to make these payments to the
Credit Union ($432.18 - $66.19 = $365.99). Further, the Debtors represented that they have made
Case 3:26-bk-30804 Doc 22 Filed 08/13/26 Entered 08/13/26 13:31:07 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
two payments on this debt to the Credit Union since filing the Reaffirmation Agreement, bringing
their loan balance down to approximately $529.52.
III. 	Analysis
At the hearing, the Court informed the Debtors of the matters set forth in 11 U.S.C.
§ 524(d)(1)(A) and (B) and analyzed, ultimately, whether the Reaffirmation Agreement would be
“in the best interest[s] of the debtor[s]” under § 524(c)(6)(A)(ii). Although it appeared the Debtors
could afford to repay this debt, such that it would not be an undue hardship, there did not appear
to be any benefit to them reaffirming the debt and excepting it from their discharge—their “fresh
start”—which could conceptually be an issue if for some reason they were no longer able to repay
the loan. In this respect, the Court informed the Debtors that entering into this Reaffirmation
Agreement could have the consequence of the Credit Union being able to collect on a debt that
would otherwise have been discharged. In this context, the Court also informed the Debtors that
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(f) there was nothing that would prevent them from voluntarily
repaying this debt to the Credit Union. Moreover, if they wished to do so, it would be in their best
interest to do so sooner than later in order to avoid paying 17.00% interest (if they were planning
to voluntarily repay this in full). After informing the Debtors that they were not required to enter
into this Reaffirmation Agreement, but could still repay the debt if they wished, the Debtors
appeared to be satisfied that this would accomplish their goal and that they no longer needed to
reaffirm the debt. Accordingly, because it appears that Debtors can achieve their goal of repayment
without the potential negative consequence, however academic or remote, of excepting a debt from
discharge, the Court decided to not approve the Reaffirmation Agreement.1
In supplement to the discussion at hearing, it is worthwhile to emphasize that a proposed
reaffirmation of an unsecured loan is reviewed cautiously and will often be denied as not being in
a debtor’s best interest. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has had occasion
to briefly write on this topic. See Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026
(6th Cir. 2011) (Sutton, J.). As aptly summarized in Bailey:
A debtor theoretically might try to reaffirm an unsecured debt as well. Yet,
as a matter of economic self-interest, debtors rarely take this route. Because a debt
1 There is also the issue that Mr. Bowles did not appear to be obligated on the original Loan Agreement and Consumer
Credit Disclosure Statement, such that it is unclear if he could reaffirm the debt. This was just another reason why it
would not be in his best interest.
Case 3:26-bk-30804 Doc 22 Filed 08/13/26 Entered 08/13/26 13:31:07 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4
to an unsecured creditor has no link to any property, the debtor usually has no
reason to reaffirm the debt rather than discharge it in bankruptcy. For this reason,
bankruptcy courts rarely approve such agreements. “[T]he best interest of a debtor
ordinarily requires the denial of a reaffirmation of an unsecured debt,” In re Kamps,
217 B.R. 836, 851 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1998), prompting courts to show “great
reluctance” in “allow[ing] reaffirmation in cases of unsecured obligations.” In re
Smith, No. 10-02784, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 503, 2011 WL 671994 (Bankr. N.D.
Iowa Feb. 17, 2011).
Bailey, 664 F.3d at 1030-31. Although reaffirmations of unsecured debt are not prohibited by 11
U.S.C. § 524, the Court has the obligation to assess whether it is in the Debtors’ best interests.
Here, the Reaffirmation Agreement, by all accounts, is not in the Debtors’ economic self-interest,
and there is no identifiable financial or practical benefit to the Debtors in doing so. Further, they
are not prevented from voluntarily repaying the debt if they wish. Thus, consistent with Bailey, the
Court concluded that the Reaffirmation Agreement should not be approved as it is not in the
Debtors’ best interests.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, having reviewed the Reaffirmation Agreement and its terms with the
Debtors; having reviewed the Debtors’ case file; based upon the Debtors’ representations; because
reaffirming this debt to the Credit Union would not be in their best interests (nor does it appear to
be their desire after learning they can voluntarily repay the debt even if it is discharged); and in
accordance with the Court’s oral decision announced at the conclusion of the hearing and as
supplemented herein, the Court hereby DENIES approval of the Reaffirmation Agreement. This
case will now proceed to discharge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Default List Plus
Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc., Attn: Mary Bergman, 3560 Pentagon Blvd., Beavercreek, OH
45431
Case 3:26-bk-30804 Doc 22 Filed 08/13/26 Entered 08/13/26 13:31:07 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4