disclaimer stampThis website is not intended to be a legal advice resource. It is only meant to be used for educational reasons. Please don’t take any action or refrain from taking any action based on what you’ve read on this website. This website, article, or link may contain outdated, incorrect, or irrelevant information. It is your obligation to speak with an expert attorney who can apply current legislation or laws to your personal situation in a professional manner.

There is no attorney-client relationship formed by using this site or communicating with Law Office of D.L. Drain or any of our employees. Please read the complete disclaimer for additional information.

It is vital that you seek legal advice from a qualified attorney on your individual situation. It will almost certainly cost you less to seek advice before acting than it will to repair your mistakes.


LIBRARY: Books for the bankruptcy practitioner:

Law.ABI.org (free access to everyone: the Code, Bankruptcy federal and local rules)

Argyle Publishing (I highly recommend)

National Consumer Law Center – student loans, general bankruptcy practice, etc.

ABA Working Paper – Best Practices for Debtors’ Attorneys 2008


IMPORTANT: This firm practices exclusively in Arizona, therefore most of these cases and notes are either Arizona or Ninth Circuit. Do your own homework.

DRUGS, INCLUDING MARIJUANA (not just bankruptcy cases and notes)


An executory contract is easily defined as one in which both parties have unfinished duties to perform toward the each other. In bankruptcy: an executory contract is a contract under which the obligation of both the bankrupt and the other party to the contract are so far unperformed that the failure of either to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing performance of the other.

  1. In dealing with executory contracts in bankruptcy there are three terms: Assume, reject, and reaffirm. They each involve their own issues.
  2. The second issue is, are we talking about the debtor, or the trustee? The effect of failure to reject a contract may differ as between the estate and the debtor personally.


“Respondents, and others entered into an Agreement of Settlement and Mutual Release as to licensing rights regarding a band known as Fear Factory. The Agreement resolved a litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (pre-bankruptcy litigation).

“Three months later, on July 12, 2011, Bell, along with the joint Movant, Amy L. Johnson, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in this Court. They obtained a discharge on November 14, 2011.  Chapter 7 Trustee never assumed or rejected the Agreement.

NOTE: the point in Bell and similar opinions is that in a chapter 7, the trustee representing the estate has an opportunity to assume or reject the agreement as to the estate. But the trustee’s failure to assume it, which automatically results in rejection per 11 U.S.C. § 365, affects only the estate, not necessarily the debtor personally. As to the debtor the contract is not automatically terminated.


Behrens v. Woodhaven Ass’n, 87 BR 971 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., 1988)

“Woodhaven would like to enforce this contract obligation against the Debtors because, in its view, they failed to wriggle out from under the obligations of the contract after bankruptcy. The problem with this analysis is that it is contrary to the scheme of the Bankruptcy Code.

“The only method … by which the Debtors’ obligation on the contract could have survived bankruptcy was a reaffirmation. In this 1983 case, that reaffirmation would have had to be signed by the Debtors before discharge and not have been rescinded by them within 30 days after it became effective. 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) (1983). [cites] Of course, no such reaffirmation was obtained here.

“The scheme set up by 11 U.S.C. §§ 524(c) & (d) is exclusive. The legislative history makes it clear that no other method of reaffirming a dischargeable debt can cause a debtor’s obligation on a prepetition contract to be enforceable after the debtor is discharged in a Chapter 7 case.

In re Nguyen (Bankr. S.D. Tex., 2013)

“The movants argue that Nguyen’s failure to terminate the contract with Reliant meant that they were entitled to continue postpetition to supply electricity and continue to charge Nguyen until he actively terminated the contract.

“For two reasons, this argument fails. First, this statement implies that Reliant’s contract with Nguyen was not an executory contract automatically rejected under § 365(d)(1) after it was not assumed within 60 days of the order for relief.

“Second, any assumption would have been by the Estate, not by Nguyen. Perhaps Reliant is confusing Nguyen’s ability to reaffirm debt with the Estate’s ability to assume the contract.

“In any event, the contract was not reaffirmed and Nguyen has no liability under the contract. The absence of liability under the contract would not allow Nguyen to use Reliant’s postdischarge electricity for free, but the obligation would not arise under the discharged contract.”

Carruth v. Eutsler (In re Eutsler) 2017 WL 6607196 (9th Cir BAP 2017)  The Ninth Circuit defines executory contracts as agreements under which the obligations of both the debtor and other party are so far unperformed that the failure of either to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other. Materiality, in turn, depends on whether, under applicable state law, one party’s nonperformance would excuse the other party’s obligation to perform. Courts will look at the outstanding obligations as of the petition date and ask whether both sides still have unperformed obligations.


28 U.S.C. Section 1408: a. District in which the domicile, residence, principal place of business in the United States, or principal assets in the United States of the debtor have been located for the 180 days preceding the filing, or for a longer portion of such 180-day period. See Broady v. Harvey (In re Broady), 247 B.R. 470 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2000); In re Fishman, 205 B.R. 147 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1997); or

b. District in which a case under title 11 concerning such debtor’s affiliate, general partner, or partnership is pending.

“Venue” in bankruptcy refers to the proper district in which your bankruptcy should be filed. In most consumer cases proper venue is a simple matter of filing the bankruptcy petition in the district and division in which the debtor has his/her residence or business headquarters. For instance, if you live in Phoenix, then normally, you would file for bankruptcy in the Phoenix U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Arizona only has one district, unlike other states (e.g. California) that have more than one district.


Domicile and residence are not the same thing.  A person can only have one domicile, but they can have multiple residences.

Residence: a person can have multiple residences – a primary home, a beach property and a cabin are all considered residences.  Where as, a Domicile refers to the primary place the individual lives (usually this is the address on their driver’s license and tax returns). For

For instance – John and Jane live in Minnesota (their drivers’ licenses are Minnesota).  During the winter they become “snow birds” and travel to Arizona for 6 months, returning to Minnesota when it starts to warm up.  They have residences in both Minnesota and Arizona, however their domicile is Minnesota.