IN RE: Risa Muenchsdorfer (2026)

Chapter 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, BARRING RISA MUENCHSDORFER FROM FILING A PETITION UNDER ANY CHAPTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE IN ANY DISTRICT FOR ONE (1) YEAR

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a hearing on August 5, 2026, to consider the Rule to Show Cause issued on June 29, 2026.¹

Facts

The following facts are found in the Court's records. On June 17, 2026, pro se Debtor Risa Muenchsdorfer filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, schedules, and statements through the Court's Electronic Self-Representation System ² to initiate this case.³ In response to Part 1, Question 6 of the petition, which asks “why are you choosing this district to file for bankruptcy,” the Debtor checked the box stating, “over the last 180 days before filing this petition, I have lived in this district longer than in any other district.” However, contrary to this statement, the petition reflects that Debtor lives in Billings, Montana, and on Part 1, Question 2 of the Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, in response to the question “during the last 3 years, have you lived anywhere other than where you live now?” Debtor checked the box stating, “No.” Further, Debtor submitted as a means of identification a Montana driver's license that lists the same address in Billings, Montana as on the petition.⁴ The schedules do not list any real property located in South Carolina owned by Debtor or any creditors located here. Additionally, the schedules and statements are largely blank and some of the required documents are missing.

On June 29, 2026, the Court issued the Rule to Show Cause at issue herein, providing Debtor notice that the above facts reflect cause exists to dismiss the above-captioned case with prejudice for one (1) year as to all Chapters of the Bankruptcy Code and to impose further sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, and requiring Debtor to file a response by July 23, 2026, and appear at the August 5, 2026, hearing to show cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice and further sanctions imposed.⁵

On July 14, 2026, Debtor filed correspondence that included a request that the Court continue the 11 U.S.C. § 341 meeting of creditors and stated that the correspondence was a formal objection to the Rule to Show Cause.⁶ The Court entered an Order denying any relief sought regarding the scheduling of the meeting of creditors, stating it would consider the correspondence as a response to the Rule to Show Cause, and denying any other relief requested in the correspondence because the nature of the requests and the exact relief requested were unclear and Debtor referred to courts and authorities not recognized by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.⁷

On July 14, 2026, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a Certification of Debtor's Failure to Appear at 341 Meeting ⁸ as well as a Notice of Continued Meeting of Creditors indicating the meeting of creditors had been continued to July 28, 2026.⁹

On July 19 and 20, 2026, Debtor filed additional correspondence.¹⁰ While the correspondence was filed by Debtor using the Court's Electronic Documents Submission System (“EDSS”), the correspondence is purportedly filed by the “Trustee of Ravensbrook, on behalf of ‘Risa Michel Muenchsdorfer’ Creditor”. It is not clear what relief the correspondence requests, and inadequate grounds are presented for any relief requested.

On July 24, 2026, Debtor filed correspondence that was docketed as a Motion to Continue First Meeting of Creditors because it requested a continuance of the 11 U.S.C. § 341 meeting of creditors.¹¹ Once again, the correspondence was filed by Debtor through EDSS but was purportedly filed by “Trustee for Ravensbrook, Creditor”. On July 27, 2026, the Court entered an Order denying any relief requested in that motion.¹² The Court held that the motion was not properly before the Court because, while an individual can appear pro se, applicable authorities provide a non-individual entity such as a trustee or trust cannot appear without counsel,¹³ and the signature on the motion did not appear to be an original, legible signature of an individual.¹⁴ The Court also warned the filer that any future filing that fails to comply with these rules will not be considered by the Court, and failure to comply could expose the filer to sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 or other authorities, and reminded the filer that scheduling of the 11 U.S.C. § 341 meeting of creditors is not handled by the Court.

On July 28, 2026, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed another Certification of Debtor's Failure to Appear at 341 Meeting ¹⁵ as well as a Notice of Continued Meeting of Creditors indicating the meeting of creditors had been continued to August 11, 2026.¹⁶

On July 29, 2026, Debtor filed correspondence through EDSS that is titled “Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal Case# 26-02717-HB with Prejudice In Re: 26 USC § 676 Order of Revocation of Constructive Trust and Reservation of Principal's Rights to Remedy with IRS-CI (ICE)” and was signed by Debtor as “Principal pro per.”¹⁷ The correspondence includes a baseless, frivolous, and conclusory allegation that this Court has engaged in crime and aided and abetted “other criminal actors engaged in FRAUD.” It also appears to seek dismissal of this case but to oppose any prejudice being added to dismissal.

Debtor's pleadings reference a prior case she filed in this district on November 1, 2002 (C/A No. 02-13125-jw). On May 14, 2003, Debtor was granted a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 and that case was closed. This prior case is not the basis for proper venue in this district.

The Court held a hearing on the Rule to Show Cause on August 5, 2026. Debtor did not appear as required. Chapter 7 Trustee John K. Fort appeared and supported dismissal of this case.

Applicable Law

Regarding venue,

a case under title 11 may be commenced in the district court for the district—(1) in which the domicile, residence, principal place of business in the United States, or principal assets in the United States, of the person or entity that is the subject of such case have been located for the one hundred and eighty days immediately preceding such commencement, or for a longer portion of such one-hundred-and-eighty-day period than the domicile, residence, or principal place of business, in the United States, or principal assets in the United States, of such person were located in any other district; or (2) in which there is pending a case under title 11 concerning such person's affiliate, general partner, or partnership.

28 U.S.C. § 1408. This case does not fit within those parameters. When a case is filed in an improper venue, the case may be dismissed. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(a)(2). Further, filing a case in an improper venue may subject the filer to sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 when there is no good faith basis in fact or law to support the filing of the petition in the improper venue. See In re Niemiec, 661 B.R. 514, 519-21 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2024).

“By presenting to the court a petition, pleading, written motion, or other document— whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that, to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances․the allegations and factual contentions have evidentiary support—or if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(3). “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions in this subdivision (c), impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that committed the violation or is responsible for it.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(1). “On its own, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated (b).” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(3). “A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or deter comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include․an order to pay a penalty into court”. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(4)(A)(ii).

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that debtors can be barred from refiling other bankruptcy cases when there is evidence of bad faith. In re Pressley, 518 B.R. 867, 872 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014) (citing Colonial Auto Ctr. v. Tomlin (In re Tomlin), 105 F.3d 933, 937 (4th Cir. 1997)). “The general rule is that dismissal with prejudice is warranted when there is ‘egregious behavior’ that prejudices creditors and is abusive of the bankruptcy system.” Id. (quoting In re Tomlin, 105 F.3d at 937).

In re Hair, 653 B.R. 816, 821 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2023).

“Pro se filings must be liberally construed and, ‘however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’ ” In re Cooper, 659 B.R. 473, 488 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2024) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). However, “the requirement of liberal construction does not allow the court to ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court.” Bustos v. Chamberlain, No. 3:09–1760–HMH–JRM, 2009 WL 2782238, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2009) (citing Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for the City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990)). “Pro se status does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” In re Residential Cap., LLC, No. 15 Civ. 3248 (KPF), 2016 WL 796860, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006)).

A Chapter 7 debtor does not have the absolute right to “withdraw” or dismiss a voluntary Chapter 7 case. See In re Leonard, No. 21-01299-HB, 2021 WL 3919818, at *3 (Bankr. D.S.C. Sept. 1, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Wood, No. 16-06515-DD, 2017 WL 1475973, at *2 (Bankr. D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2017)) (“While a debtor is free to file for bankruptcy protection, he does not enjoy the same discretion to withdraw his case once it has been commenced. The debtors must make a showing of cause to dismiss their voluntary case․Adequate cause to dismiss does not necessarily exist upon a showing by the debtor of his ability to pay debts. The most important consideration is the best interests of creditors.”).

Conclusion

Debtor does not have the right to withdraw her case, the case remains pending, and the Court will address the Rule to Show Cause, which was issued prior to her request to withdraw her case. The Court concludes that Debtor has shown bad faith in filing this case in an improper venue. Debtor filed documents under penalty of perjury that include incorrect information regarding venue. Debtor was provided notice that her schedules and statements reflect an inadequate connection to this district to justify filing a case here and was required to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice. She has failed to provide an adequate explanation, and instead filed frivolous correspondence making demands on the Court. Her bad faith is also indicated by the filing of schedules and statements that are largely blank, by failing to file all required documents, and by her failure to participate in the scheduled 341 Meetings. Finally, she failed to appear before the Court for this hearing as ordered. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate to deter her and others similarly situated from filing a bankruptcy case in an improper venue.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. Any relief requested in the correspondence filed on July 19, 2026 (ECF No. 31), July 20, 2026 (ECF No. 33), and July 29, 2026 (ECF No. 41) is denied; and

2. The above-captioned case is dismissed with prejudice, and Risa Muenchsdorfer is barred from filing a petition under all Chapters of the Bankruptcy Code in any district for a period of one (1) year from the date of entry of this Order.

FOOTNOTES

1.   ECF No. 21.

2.   See SC LBR 5005-4(d)(2). The Court's Local Rules are available on its website at scb.uscourts.gov/local-rules.

3.   ECF No. 1.

4.   ECF No. 4.

5.   ECF No. 21.

6.   ECF No. 24.

7.   ECF No. 27, entered July 16, 2026.

8.   ECF No. 25.

9.   ECF No. 26.

10.   ECF Nos. 31 and 33.

11.   ECF No. 35.

12.   ECF No. 36.

13.   See SC LBR 9011-2(c) (“All partnerships, corporations and other business entities must be represented by an attorney duly admitted to practice as specified in SC LBR 2090- 1, except with respect to the filing of proofs of claim or interests and related documents and reaffirmation agreements or unless allowed by the Court.”).

14.   See SC LBR 9011-4(b) (“Any document to be filed with the Court that requires a pro se individual's signature shall be signed with the original handwritten signature of the filer before delivery to the Court in paper form or by electronic transmission. Pro se individuals shall not electronically sign documents.”).

15.   ECF No. 37.

16.   ECF No. 38.

17.   ECF No. 41.