The Bankruptcy Code Section 524 (c) (1) provides that a confirmation agreement is enforceable only if it was «done» before the discharge was granted. See 11 U.S.C 524 (c) (1). Section 524, paragraph 1, point 1, expressly provides that, where a hearing is required to obtain the confirmation agreement, «this hearing is concluded before the debtor`s discharge is taken over.» 11 U.S.C No. 524 (m) (1). The timing of the agreement and judicial authorization is therefore crucial. In addition, any delay in the application for leave, once the discharge has been granted, is serious and prevents any application of the agreement. See z.B., In re Clark, 10-73746, 2010 WL 5348721 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Dec 21, 2010); In re Rafferty, nr. 08-30950 (LMW), 2008 WL 5545266, at `1 (Bankr. D.Conn. Dec 23, 2008); In re Suber, Nr. 06-20369 NLW, 2007 WL 2325229, at `2 (Bankr.
D.N.J. 13. 2007); In re Lee, 356 B.R. 177, 183 (Bankr. N.D.W.Va. 2006); In re Collins, 243 B.R. 217, 219 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2000); In re Graham, 297 B.R. 695, 699 (Bankr. E.D.Tenn.
R. BANKR. P. 4008 (a). Rule 4008 sets the date for filing a confirmation agreement. However, it does not authorize the cancellation of the requirements of Section 524 (c) (1) of Demascourt, namely that a debtor enters into a confirmation agreement before the discharge is granted, nor does it allow evidence 524 (m) (1) that oral proceedings, if judicial authorization is required, must be closed before the debtor receives discharge. See In re Nichols, No. 10-01323, 2010 WL 4922538 `2 (Bankr. N.D.Iowa 2010) (citing In re Lee, 356 B.R. 177, 184 (Bankr.
N.D.W.Va. On May 19, 2010, the debtors filed a joint application for discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Act («petition»). [point 1] On their Schedule B, they list three cars, including a 2007 Lincoln Town Car. Schedule G indicates that debtors have a contract for a 2007 Lincoln Town Car, which requires a monthly payment of $737.40. The other contracting party is designated as «Ford Credit»; The Individual Debtor`s Memorandum of Understanding states that the contract with Ford is accepted in accordance with 11 U.S.C. P. 365 (p) (2). On May 19, 2010, Neil H.
Ackerman, Esq. Acted As Agent for Chapter 7 («Trustee») of the debtor. On July 1, 2010, the agent submitted an agent`s report on non-distribution. On 30 August 2010, a decision to discharge the debtors and a final decree were adopted. [point 21] On the same day, this case was closed. The Tribunal finds that a section 524 confirmation agreement is not a replacement prince in the case of an after-lease. 365 pp. First, the Court finds that the application is largely devoid of merit and legal power.
In addition, the proposed confirmation agreement was never submitted to the Court of Justice. As a result, the Court did not even receive the basic conditions of the proposed confirmation agreement, nor the proof of timing or execution.