Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-06021/USCOURTS-ca8-15-06021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan Boyd Curtis
Appellant
Patricia A. Segraves
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-6021

___________________________

In re: Patricia A. Segraves, formerly known as Patricia A. Curtis, also known as

Patricia L. Seagraves

lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor

------------------------------

Alan Boyd Curtis

lllllllllllllllllllllCreditor - Appellant

v.

Patricia A. Segraves

lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: November 23, 2015

 Filed: November 30, 2015

____________

Before KRESSEL, SALADINO and SHODEEN, Bankruptcy Judges.

____________

SALADINO, Bankruptcy Judge.

Appellate Case: 15-6021 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Entry ID: 4340789 
Alan Boyd Curtis, the appellant, appeals from an order of the bankruptcy court1

denying his “motion to dismiss petitioner’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for failure

to comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 109(h)(3)(A); filed in bad faith to hinder, delay, and

defraud creditors.”2

 The bankruptcy court’s order was previously determined to be a

final order, so we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b).

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The debtor, Patricia A. Segraves, filed her Chapter 13 voluntary petition on

September 27, 2012. On the same date, she filed a certificate certifying that she had

received the required credit counseling, via telephone and internet, on September 20,

2012, from a court-approved credit counseling agency. The certificate was signed by

a senior counselor of the agency. 

Mr. Curtis is a creditor and argued that the debtor herself was required to sign

the statement of credit counseling under penalty of perjury. The bankruptcy court

disagreed, ruling that the Bankruptcy Code merely requires the debtor to establish that

she had received a briefing regarding credit counseling in compliance with 11 U.S.C.

1

The Honorable Barry S. Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

2

Although the caption of the motion filed by Mr. Curtis references “filed in bad

faith to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors,” no such allegations are made or

otherwise addressed in the body of the motion nor were any such issues addressed by

the bankruptcy court. Therefore, we will not address them on appeal. Arguments

raised but not developed are deemed waived. Garden v. Central Neb. Housing Corp.,

719 F.3d 899, 905 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Cubillos v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1054, 1058

n.7 (8th Cir. 2009)). The court need not consider arguments or issues “not developed

in [a party’s] briefs as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A).”

Rotskoff v. Cooley, 438 F.3d 852, 854 (8th Cir. 2006). “It is thus considered

abandoned for failure ‘to provide any reasons or arguments' for his contentions.” Id.

at 854–55 (quoting United States v. Zavala, 427 F.3d 562, 564-65 n.1 (8th Cir. 2005)).

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-6021 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Entry ID: 4340789 
§ 109(h)(1). The court found that the certificate of counseling was sufficient to meet

the statutory requirements and denied Mr. Curtis’ contention to the contrary because

it was “based on an erroneous interpretation of law.”

The bankruptcy court’s decision regarding whether to dismiss a bankruptcy case

is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. McCarty v. Jenkins (In re Jenkins), 428 B.R.

845, 848 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2010). The bankruptcy court abuses its discretion when it

fails to apply the proper legal standard or bases its order on findings of fact that are

clearly erroneous. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Farmland Indus., Inc.

(In re Farmland Indus., Inc.), 397 F.3d 647, 651 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Stalnaker v.

DLC, Ltd., 376 F.3d 819, 825 (8th Cir. 2004)).

11 U.S.C. § 109(h) provides in relevant part as follows:

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) . . . an individual may

not be a debtor under this title unless such individual has,

during the 180-day period ending on the date of filing of

the petition by such individual, received from an approved

nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency . . . an

individual or group briefing . . . that outlined the

opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted

such individual in performing a related budget analysis.

***

(3)(A) [T]he requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply

with respect to a debtor who submits to the court a

certification that –

(i) describes exigent circumstances that merit a

waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1)[.]

The language of section 109(h) is plain. Hedquist v. Fokkena (In re Hedquist),

342 B.R. 295, 300 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2006). It does not require that a debtor sign a credit

counseling certificate under penalty of perjury. Nor does 11 U.S.C. § 521(b)(1), which

simply requires an individual debtor to file with the court “a certificate from the

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-6021 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Entry ID: 4340789 
approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that provided the debtor

services under section 109(h) describing the services provided to the debtor. . . .” Mr.

Curtis seems to believe the “certificate” requirement of § 521(b)(1) somehow requires

a signature by the debtor under penalty of perjury. Clearly, it does not. In fact, it

doesn’t require a signature of the debtor at all. It only requires a certificate from the

credit counseling agency. The bankruptcy court did not fail to apply the proper legal

standard or base its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Rather, it correctly

applied the law and denied Mr. Curtis’ motion. 

Mr. Curtis also argues issues related to his appeal of an order granting the

debtor’s motion to sell certain real property free and clear of liens. That appeal was

docketed as Case No. 15-6027. However, the appeal was dismissed on September 24,

2015, because Mr. Curtis failed to pay the required fees. Accordingly, we lack

jurisdiction to decide that appeal. Moreover, Mr. Curtis’ motion to stay the sale

pending appeal was denied, so the sale proceeded and is now final. Therefore, the

appeal is moot. Sears v. U.S. Trustee (In re AFY, Inc.), 734 F.3d 810, 816-17 (8th Cir.

2013); 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). 

Finally, Mr. Curtis raises a variety of other issues but we will not address

matters which were not presented to the bankruptcy court in the first instance or

otherwise are unrelated to the issue on appeal. Dapec, Inc. v. Small Bus. Admin. (In

re MBA Poultry, L.L.C.), 291 F.3d 528, 534 n.3 (8th Cir. 2002) (declining to address

argument not raised in the bankruptcy court).

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-6021 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Entry ID: 4340789