Case Name: In re Harold Arlin BUERMAN, Debtor
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-23
Citations: 295 B.R. 876
Docket Number: No. 5:03-BK-74382
Parties: In re Harold Arlin BUERMAN, Debtor.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 295
Pages: 876–877

Head Matter:
In re Harold Arlin BUERMAN, Debtor.
No. 5:03-BK-74382.
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.
July 23, 2003.
Michael C. Lea, Pearson Law Firm, Fayetteville, AR, for Debtor/Interested Party.
Joyce Bradley Babin, Chapter 13 Trustee.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD JOINT DEBTOR
RICHARD D. TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judge.
Pending before the Court is the debtor's motion to add a joint debtor filed on July 15, 2003, to amend his voluntary petition to include his wife as a joint debtor. The debtor seems to rely on Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1009(a), which provides for a general right to amend a voluntary petition as a matter of course at any time before the case is closed.
11 U.S.C § 302 provides for a joint petition with the debtor's spouse. However, the language of § 302 states that a joint case is commenced by the filing of a single petition. Courts have recognized the plain language of § 302 to come to the conclusion that "nothing in section 302 suggests that a debtor may amend a petition to add a spouse as a debtor and thereby retroactively commence a case for that spouse." In re Clinton, 166 B.R. 195, 196 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1994).
Courts have refused to apply a broad construction of Rule 1009(a) and have denied this type of amendment citing two primary concerns: (1) the prejudice to creditors, and (2) the absence of any clear authority to permit such an amendment. Id. at 197. The possibility of prejudice to the creditors exists because "[ajdding a spouse as a debtor may in some cases result in delay and confusion . adversely affect[ing] a creditor's strategy to collect the debt." Id. Furthermore, undertaking a broad wording of Rule 1009(a) to interpret § 302 as permitting the "single petition" to include an amendment that adds a spouse is inconsistent. It is more consistent with the concepts expressed in § 301 and 302 and the courts' interpretation of the limited purpose of Rule 1009(a), as it applies to the amendment of petitions, not to rely on a broad reading of Rule 1009(a) and conserve judicial resources without denying relief to the spouse. Id. at 199.
In addition to the concerns listed above, granting a motion to add a spouse in this manner raises serious questions as to the appropriate filing date. In re Sobin, 99 B.R. 483, 484 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989). To avoid these issues, a straightforward procedure for permitting belated bankruptcy relief to a non-filing spouse is available: "[t]hat individual is free to commence a voluntary case and then seek joint administration of the two related cases involving husband and wife as provided by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1015(b)(1)." Olson—Ioane v. Derham-Burk (In re Olson), 253 B.R. 73, 75 (9th Cir. BAP 2000).
For the reasons stated above, the debt- or's motion to add a joint debtor is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.