In re Ryan Robert Brassell, Order Denying Motion to Reinstate

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 14, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Ryan Robert Brassell

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 26-11112

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Bankruptcy Judge Thomas B. McNamara

In re:

Bankruptcy Case No. 26-11112 TBM

RYAN ROBERT BRASSELL, Chapter 13

Debtor.

---

        ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE                          

---

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on “Emergency Motion to         

Reinstate” (Docket No. 17, the “Motion”) filed by Ryan Robert Brassell (the
“Debtor”).

                  I.   Background.                                 

The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 on 

February 26, 2026 (the “Petition Date”). He also filed a “Statement About Your
Social Security Numbers” (Docket No. 3) and an “Application for Individuals to
Pay the Filing Fee in Installments” (Docket No. 4, the “Application”). This is the
Debtor’s third pro se bankruptcy filing since February 27, 2025.1 This case, like
the others, was highly deficient, in that the Debtor did not file all required
documents with his initial filing.

On the Petition Date, the Court issued three documents:  (1) a “Notice to 

File Credit Counseling Certification” (Docket No. 5, the “Section 109(h) Notice”);
(2) a “Notice of Deficiency” (Docket No. 6, the “Notice of Deficiency”); and (3) an
“Order for Payment of Filing Fees in Installments and Notice of Dismissal in the
Event of Default” (Docket No. 6, the “Fee Schedule Order”).

In the Section 109(h) Notice, the Clerk of the Court advised the Debtor 

that he had until March 12, 2026, by which to file a certificate showing that he
had received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180
days before this bankruptcy case was filed, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 109 (h).

1 The Debtor previously filed In re Ryan Robert Brasell, Bankr. Case No. 25-10978 TBM
(Bankr. D. Colo.), seeking relief under Chapter 13, on February 27, 2025. That case was
dismissed on March 17, 2025, pursuant to Section 109(h). Prior to that, the Debtor filed In re
Ryan Robert Brasell, Bankr. Case No. 25-18242 TBM (Bankr. D. Colo.), also under Chapter 13,
on December 17, 2025. That case was dismissed on dismissed on January 1, 2026, pursuant to
Section 109(h).

The Clerk warned that if the Debtor failed to file a Section 109(h) certificate, his
case might be dismissed. (Docket No. 5.)

In the Notice of Deficiency, the Court identified a number of documents 

that the Debtor had failed to file with his petition, including:

     • Statement of Financial Affairs                              
     • Summary of Assets and Liabilities and Certain               
       Statistical Information                                     
     • All Schedules: A/B, C, D, E/F, G, H, I, J                   
     • Declaration About an Individual Debtor's Schedules          
       Official Form 106Dec                                        
     • Employee Income Records and/or Statement                    
       Concerning Payment Advices (L.B.F. 1007-6.1)                
     • Chapter 13 Statement of Your Current Monthly                
       Income and Calculation of Commitment Period                 
       Official Form 122C-1                                        
     • Chapter 13 Plan (L.B.F. 3015-1.1)                           
     • Proof of legally sufficient service and notice of the       
       plan, the deadline to file objections thereto, and the      
       hearing on confirmation, to the U.S. Trustee,               
       Chapter 13 Trustee, and all creditors and parties in        
       interest                                                    

The Clerk notified that Debtor that all such documents were due by March 12,
2026, and warned: “Your case is subject to dismissal if you fail to file the missing
documents by the above date.” (Docket No. 6.)

Finally, in the Fee Schedule Order, the Court ordered the Debtor to make 

the first installment payment of $126 on March 12, 2026, along with further
payments. The Clerk of the Court warned in the Fee Schedule Order: “The
Debtor is advised that failure to pay the statutory filing fees as set forth above
shall constitute cause for dismissal, and Debtor may be further barred from filing
a petition in this Court for 180 days pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. § 109 (g).” All
three Notices were sent to the Debtor at his address of record. (Docket Nos. 8,
9, and 11.)

As of March 16, 2026, the Debtor had not filed the required certification 

under Section 109(h). Accordingly, the Court entered the “Order Dismissing
Case without Prejudice Due to Ineligibility” (Docket No. 14, the “Dismissal
Order”).

The Debtor filed the instant Motion on April 8, 2026, along with a 

“Certificate of Counseling” (Docket No. 18) which shows that he completed the
credit counseling required by Section 109(h) on December 17, 2025. In the
Motion, the Debtor requests that the Court reinstate his Chapter 13 filing since he
completed the received credit counseling prior to the petition date, stating: “My
house is in foreclosure and scheduled for auction tomorrow April 9th, 2026, so I
am asking for the original stay to be reinstated by the Court or for the Court to
reimpose the stay.”

  II.  Authority for “Reinstatement” of the Debtor’s Case.         

The Debtor has failed to cite any legal authority in support of the instant 

Motion. Perhaps the Debtor wished to rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, as incorporated
by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024. That Rule provides:

  (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or          
  Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a    
  party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order,  
  or proceeding for the following reasons:                         

       (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable           
  neglect;                                                         

       (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable         
  diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for    
  a new trial under Rule 59(b);                                    

       (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or           
  extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing      
  party;                                                           

       (4) the judgment is void;                                   

       (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or           
  discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been     
  reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer   
  equitable; or                                                    

       (6) any other reason that justifies relief.                 

The Court construes the request to reinstate the Chapter 13 filing as a 

request to reconsider and vacate the Dismissal Order.

                 III.  Legal Analysis.                             

A. The Court Denies the Request to Reinstate the Case.

The Debtor has not supported his request that the Court reconsider the 

Dismissal Order on the basis of any of the grounds for relief set forth above, but
perhaps he asserts that dismissal was a “mistake” since, having completed the
credit counseling course within 180 days prior to the Petition Date, he was
eligible to be a debtor under Section 109(h).

Having reviewed the credit counseling certificate, the Court finds that the
Debtor was, indeed, eligible under 11 U.S.C. § 109 (h) to be a debtor on the
Petition Date. Under different circumstances, the Court might find that dismissal
of the case was in error. However, in this case, there are other reasons why
dismissal of the case was warranted such that vacating the Dismissal Order is
not merited or appropriate. The Debtor did not timely comply with the Section
109(h) Notice. Further, the Debtor still has not paid the first installment of his
filing fee nor filed the statements and schedules needed for his case to proceed.

Also, the Debtor’s section 341 meeting of creditors, which was set for March 31,
2026, did not occur, so the Debtor’s creditors and the Chapter 13 Trustee did not
have opportunity to examine him. Because the Section 341 meeting is a critical
step in any case, and because no bankruptcy case can progress in the absence
of so many missing required documents, the Court really had no choice other
than to dismiss the Debtor’s case. At this point, reinstatement of the case would
necessitate rescheduling the Section 341 meeting and providing notice to all
creditors. As such, the Court cannot find that the Debtor met his burden to prove
grounds exist for vacating the Dismissal Order.

B. The Court Cannot Reinstate or Impose a Stay

Even if the Court were to vacate the Dismissal Order, doing so would not 

stay the foreclosure proceeding that the Debtor seeks to prevent.

Generally, when a debtor files a bankruptcy case, an automatic stay goes 

into effect pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a). Section 362(a) provides, in relevant
part, that the filing of a bankruptcy petition

 operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of –              

 (1)   the commencement or continuation, including the             
 issuance or employment of process, of a judicial,                 
 administrative, or other action or proceeding against the         
 debtor that was or could have been commenced before the           
 commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a        
 claim against the debtor that arose before the                    
 commencement of the case under this title;                        

 (2)   the enforcement, against the debtor or against              
 property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the         
 commencement of the case under this title;                        

 (3)   any act to obtain possession of property of the estate      
 or of property from the estate or to exercise control over        
 property of the estate;                                           

       . . .                                                       
 (6)   any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against      
 the debtor that arose before the commencement of the              
 case under this title . . . . 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a).  However, subsection (c)(4) of Section 362 provides: 

 (A)                                                               

     (i)   if a single or joint case is filed by or against a      
     debtor who is an individual under this title, and if 2 or     
     more single or joint cases of the debtor were pending         
     within the previous year but were dismissed, other            
     than a case refiled under a chapter other than chapter        
     7 after dismissal under section 707(b), the stay under        
     subsection (a) shall not go into effect upon the filing of    
     the later case; and                                           

     (ii)  on request of a party in interest, the court shall      
     promptly enter an order confirming that no stay is in         
     effect;                                                       

(B)   if, within 30 days after the filing of the later case, a     
party in interest requests the court may order the stay to take    
effect in the case as to any or all creditors (subject to such     
conditions or limitations as the court may impose), after          
notice and a hearing, only if the party in interest                
demonstrates that the filing of the later case is in good faith    
as to the creditors to be stayed;                                  

(C)   a stay imposed under subparagraph (B) shall be               
effective on the date of the entry of the order allowing the       
stay to go into effect; and                                        

(D)   for purposes of subparagraph (B), a case is                  
presumptively filed not in good faith (but such presumption        
may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the            
contrary)—                                                         

     (i)   as to all creditors if—                                 

         (I)   2 or more previous cases under this title           
         in which the individual was a debtor were                 
         pending within the 1-year period;                         

         (II)  a previous case under this title in which           
         the individual was a debtor was dismissed within          
         the time period stated in this paragraph after the        
         debtor failed to file or amend the petition or other      
         documents as required by this title or the court          
         without substantial excuse (but mere                      
         inadvertence or negligence shall not be                   
         substantial excuse unless the dismissal was               
         caused by the negligence of the debtor’s                  
         attorney), failed to provide adequate protection          
         as ordered by the court, or failed to perform the         
         terms of a plan confirmed by the court; or                

         (III)  there has not been a substantial change            
         in the financial or personal affairs of the debtor        
         since the dismissal of the next most previous             
         case under this title, or any other reason to             
         conclude that the later case will not be                  
         concluded, if a case under chapter 7, with a              
         discharge, and if a case under chapter 11 or 13,          
         with a confirmed plan that will be fully performed;       
         or                                                        

     (ii)   as to any creditor that commenced an action            
     under subsection (d) in a previous case in which the          
     individual was a debtor if, as of the date of dismissal       
     of such case, such action was still pending or had            
     been resolved by terminating, conditioning, or limiting       
     the stay as to such action of such creditor. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (c)(4).  Congress enacted to this provision to “curb abuse by 

repeat filers.” As Judge Brown explained it, Section 362(c)(4) “prescribes that
the automatic stay does not take effect when a petition is filed if the debtor has
filed two or more prior bankruptcy cases within the previous year, unless a party
in interest demonstrates that the filing of the new case is ‘in good faith.’” In re
Murphy, 493 B.R. 576, 580 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2013). Further,

     In those instances in which the debtor or another             
     party convinces the court that the new case                   
     represents a good faith filing, Congress nevertheless         
     only allows the stay to be imposed prospectively, and         
     not retroactively.  It states that “a stay imposed under      
     [this section] shall be effective on the date of the entry    
     of the order allowing the stay to go into effect.” 11        
     U.S.C. § 362 (c)(4)(C).  Read together, these two              
     subsections demonstrate that you can wipe out the             
     stay retroactively, but you cannot impose it                  
     retroactively.  No doubt this reflects Congress’ shared       
     reluctance to upset any actions taken by creditors            
     while the stay was not in effect.                             

Two cases filed by the Debtor were pending within the previous year but 

were dismissed prior to filing the instant case. The Debtor did not file a motion
under Section 362(c)(4)(B) to impose the stay within the statutory deadline.
Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(4), the automatic stay under Section
362(a) never went into effect. And, as Judge Brown explained in Murphy, the
stay cannot be imposed retroactively after expiration of the 30-day period set
forth in Section 362(c)(4)(B). Further, the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize
the Court to reimpose the automatic stay when the request is made more than 30
days after the petition date.

                         IV.    Order 
 It is, therefore, 
 ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.  The Debtor’s case remains 

dismissed. 2
DATED this 14th day of April, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
wt)
Thomas B. McNamara,C
United States Bankruptcy Judge

 2      If the Debtor files  a new bankruptcy case, the Debtor should also take care to 

include all required documents (including the Section 109(h) Certificate, petition, schedules,
statement of financial affairs and creditor matrix) as well as his telephone number and other
contact information (including an email address, if the Debtor has an email address) in his case
filing. Further, if the Debtor files again, the Court strongly encourages the Debtor to seek the
assistance of counsel. Prosecution of matters in bankruptcy court requires familiarity with the
Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of
this Court and the interplay among them. The Bankruptcy Court and its staff are not permitted to
advise debtors or other parties about how to proceed. If the Debtor continues to file matters in
this case, the Debtor will be held to the same standard as parties represented by
counsel. However, the Court has recently instituted a pro se bankruptcy clinic, staffed by an
attorney, at which the Debtor might be able to receive some limited legal advice and assistance at
no cost. The Debtor can obtain additional information about the clinic at cobar.org/bankruptcy or
by calling 720-633-8866. Alternatively, some attorneys might be able to consult with the Debtor
for free and might be able to work with the Debtor to determine whether legal fees can be paid
through a Chapter 13 plan. Or, if the Debtor's income is low enough, it is possible that Colorado
Legal Services may be able to provide advice or assistance. Colorado Legal Services can be
reached at 1905 Sherman Street, Suite 400, Denver Colorado 80203; telephone number 303-
837-1321. Its website is http://www.coloradolegalservices.org. Other organizations also might be
able to provide pro bono legal services. See https://www.denbar.org/Public/Pro-Bono-Legal-
Assistance.