IN RE JOHNSON
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland, Baltimore Division.
Filed: October 19, 2012.
38. Ms. Johnson's Application to Waive Chapter 7 Filing Fee was denied by Order of this Court entered March 19, 2012, but she was granted permission to pay the filing fee in installments [Docket No. 12].
39. Ms. Johnson's bankruptcy case was dismissed by the Court on April 13, 2012 as a result of a failure to pay the required filing fees [Docket No. 14].
40. Thereafter, Ms. Johnson contacted the Defendants for advice on how to get her bankruptcy case reinstated.
41. In response to Ms. Johnson's inquiry, the Defendants prepared a motion styled "Debtor's Motion to Reconsider Order Dismissing Case" [Docket No. 17] (the "Motion to Reconsider").
42. The Defendants charged Ms. Johnson $68.00 to prepare the Motion to Reconsider.
43. The Motion to Reconsider was filed in Ms. Johnson's case on April 20, 2012.
44. The Defendants failed to disclose that they prepared the Motion to Reconsider.
1. Congress has provided that "[t]he United States trustee may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in any case or proceeding" under Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). 11 U.S.C. § 307. Additionally, various paragraphs of § 110 of the Bankruptcy Code specifically provide that the United State Trustee may bring actions to redress the misconduct alleged in this case. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(i)(1), 110(J)(1).
2. The term "debtor" is defined by the Bankruptcy Code as a "person ... concerning which a case under [the Bankruptcy Code] has been commenced." 11 U.S.C. § 101(13). For purposes of these Findings, the Court applies that same definition.
3. At the hearing on this matter, the Assistant United States Trustee testified that Mancini admitted to him that the social security number listed on these documents was not Mancini's social security number but that Mancini claimed the numbers were tax identification numbers assigned to him or his businesses. However, the Assistant United States Trustee also testified that his own investigation indicated that the numbers were actually social security numbers issued to individuals living outside of Maryland. There was no evidence presented as to the identity of these individuals or that these individuals were aware that Mancini had used their social security numbers.