Anna Sue Ray

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re:
Anna Sue Ray
Debtor(s).
) 	Case No. 09-37220
)
) 	Chapter 7
)
)
) 	JUDGE MARY ANN WHIPPLE
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPROVE REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT
This case is before the court upon a Motion for Approval of a Reaffirmation Agreement, [Doc. #19],
filed by creditor The Huntington National Bank sbmt Sky Bank (“Creditor”). The Reaffirmation Agreement
with Debtor for which approval is sought in the motion was also separately filed by the creditor. [Doc. #18].
The motion will be denied.
As an initial matter, the statute contemplates that motions for approval of reaffirmation agreements
under certain circumstances be made by the reaffirming debtor, not by the reaffirming creditor. See 11
U.S.C. § 524(k)(7),(8). Creditor lacks statutory standing to file the motion.
There are also other statutory grounds for denying the motion. The Reaffirmation Agreement relates
to a debt secured by Debtor’s home 	upon which the Creditor 	has a mortgage lien. Part C of the
Reaffirmation Agreement was not signed by counsel for Debtor, requiring a hearing under 11 U.S.C. §
524(d). The court also found a presumption of undue hardship that was not rebutted to the satisfaction of
the court. The hearing was also set under 11 U.S.C. § 524(m). The hearing was duly noticed for February
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings
and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document has been
entered electronically in the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.
Dated: February 19 2010
09-37220-maw Doc 24 FILED 02/19/10 ENTERED 02/19/10 16:36:59 Page 1 of 2

18, 2010. Debtor did not appear for the hearing. The court therefore did not hold the required hearing. The
court did not inform Debtor as required by 11 U.S.C. § 524(d)(1) and the presumption of undue hardship
has not been rebutted to the satisfaction of the court. A separate order disapproving the Reaffirmation
Agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 524(m) will be entered by the court.
Moreover, even if Debtor had appeared, the court would not grant this motion. The Reaffirmation
Agreement involves reaffirmation of consumer debt secured by real property of Debtor. All that is required
under the statute with respect to such agreements where a debtor is unrepresented is that the court inform
the Debtor as required by 11 U.S.C. § 524(d)(1). No separate determination under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)
is required due to the exception of real property therefrom by § 524(c)(6)(B) and (d)(2). While court
approval of a reaffirmation agreement that is not signed by counsel for a debtor is required in order for
reaffirmation of a debt secured by personal property to be enforceable, see 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6), (d)(1),
bankruptcy courts are not required to approve and indeed are not authorized to either approve or disapprove
such agreements under § 524(c)(6) and (d), an exception presumably added to the Bankruptcy Code at the
behest of residential mortgage lenders such as Creditor.
Lastly, the motion seeks approval of the Reaffirmation Agreement under § 524(m). Bankruptcy
courts are not required under § 524(m) or any other part of the statute 	to approve affirmatively every
agreement where a presumption of undue hardship is shown on Part D of the document. Rather, courts are
given the discretion to disapprove such agreements only after notice and a hearing if the presumption is not
rebutted to the court’s satisfaction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of a Reaffirmation Agreement
[Doc. #19] filed by creditor The Huntington National Bank sbmt Sky Bank is DENIED.
2
09-37220-maw Doc 24 FILED 02/19/10 ENTERED 02/19/10 16:36:59 Page 2 of 2