On February 17, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion regarding whether a debtor was excused from the new requirement to receive credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy. This case is one of the first appellate decisions regarding the new requirement. In this case, filed last November, the debtor did not consult with an attorney until the late afternoon the day before his house was scheduled for foreclosure. He contacted a credit counseling agency, but they were unable to accommodate him before the scheduled foreclosure. The debtor filed a certificate outlining the exigent circumstances that prevented him from timely obtaining credit counseling. The panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that the debtor failed to outline adequate exigent circumstances; thus, he could not qualify as a debtor under the revised Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court had declined to accept the debtor's excuses because under Missouri law, the debtor had had at least 20 days advance notice of the foreclosure during which he could have acted. In other words, the debtor's delay did not turn the situation into an emergency that warranted an exemption from the counseling requirement. While reviewing the statutory exceptions to the counseling requirement, the panel also took the opportunity to jab at Congress for some poorly drafted provisions: "There could be a third exception. Section 109(h)(4) provides for an exception for debtors who are unable to complete the briefing requirements because of incapacity, disability, or active military duty in a military combat zone. That subsection, on its face, says that the briefing requirements do not apply. However, while the requirements of subdivision (h)(1) specifically excuse people who meet the requirements of subsections (2) and (3), it explicitly provides that the briefing requirement applies "notwithstanding any other provision of this section." Thus, the language of ? 109(h)(1) and (4) seem to preempt each other's applicability. Fortunately, we are not required in this appeal to attack that Gordian Knot." Also, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the court nitpicks the interchanging use of the words "exemption" and "waiver" regarding the counseling requirement because both words imply that the counseling requirement must never be fulfilled. The court notes that the statute should more properly use the term "deferral" since debtors must ultimately obtain counseling even if the court allows them to do it post-petition. The full opinion is available at: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/056059P.pdf Mac