I read Mark’s summary. I think that although we reach opposite conclusions, we don’t disagree on the analysis of the issue.
However, there is a long line of cases which I cited in my article that support the position that provided the debtor states an intention to reaffirm, cooperates with creditor in executing reaffirmation K, and attends reaffirmation agreement then ride-though exists if the judge denies the agreement.
11 U.S.C. §§362(h)(1)(a), 521(a)(2)(A), 521(a)(2)(B),521(a)(6)(B), 521(d). In re Perez, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 2229, at *29 (Bankr. D. N.M. July 12, 2010) (The court held that §521(a)(2)(B) does not require the debtor toconsummate an enforceable reaffirmation agreement,since whether the agreement is enforceable depends on factors outside the debtor’s power or control, but only to do all that is within the power and control of the debtor.). See also In re Moustafi, 371 B.R. 434, 438 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2007); In re Husain, 364 B.R. 211, 219 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007); In re Barron, 441 B.R. 131, 137 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010); In re Chim, 381 B.R. 191, 198 (Bankr. D. Md. 2008). In re Hardiman, 398 B.R. 161, 187 (E.D. N.C.2008) (The court held that since the debtor had alreadycomplied with §§362 and 521, the remaining language stating, “[n]othing in this title shall prevent or limit the operation of an [an ipso facto clause]” does not apply.); In re Perez, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 2229, at 40. The same analysis should be applied when reading the language used later in §521(d).
As for language in 521(d), the Hardiman case sets forth that this provision only applies when the debtor fails to do something required after the passage of BAPCPA which basically requires the debtor to:
1) State an intention to reaffirm 2) Cooperate with creditor in executing and sending reaffirmation agreement back to creditor (This may be something debtors and debtor’s counsel may want to document in case creditor tries to claim debtor did not do this); and 3) Attend the reaffirmation hearings.