In this case the debtor owed Bank One nearly $2,000.00 on a credit card when he filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The bank’s attorney proceeded to schedule an examination of the debtor, under oath, often referred to as a Rule 2004 exam.

The bank’s attorney had an Order entered with the Court requiring the debtor to appear for the exam and produce various documents concerning his financial condition.

Debtor’s attorney objected to the production of the documents. The bank’s attorney also proposed to debtor’s attorney that the examination would not be necessary if the debtor agreed to reaffirm a portion of his obligation with the bank.

A “Rule 2004” examination of the debtor is in the nature of an inquisition and, consequently, the field of inquiry is wide. The examination should, however, be related to the acts, conduct, property, or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the debtor’s right to discharge.

In this case, the Court found that the bank did not have a legitimate claim to object to discharge of its debt, and that the debtor’s counsel’s attempt to examine the debtor and compel production of various documents, constituted harassment of the debtor in order to force an unnecessary reaffirmation.

The Court did not allow the exam, finding the bank’s attorney was inquiring as to unrelated matters. In re: James Hammond (U.S. Bkrtcy. S.D. Ohio, No. 2-91-00504 & 284-54-2492).

Author: Charles R. Harroun, Attorney at Law