In In re Lilliefors, 2007 WL 2903803* (E.D. Va. October 3, 2007), the debtor certified, under oath, that he had obtained the credit counseling prior to filing his Bankruptcy petition, as required by §109(h)(1). In fact, he had not obtained the counseling. However, the Court applied judicial estoppel and prohibited the debtor from taking an inconsistent position in his pleadings to obtain a benefit or advantage. Thus, the debtor could not falsely claim that he had obtained counseling, then seek a dismissal on the grounds that the requirement was not met. The Court commented that Congress enacted §109(h)(1) to prevent abuse, and not create another avenue of abuse by debtors. The debtor was, therefore, deemed to have satisfied the credit counseling requirement and the case was not dismissed.
The Court relief heavily on Judge Diehl’s opinion in In re Parker.
* I am doing a trial with Westlaw, hence the WL citations.