When a reaffirmation agreement is filed with the court, the clerk will indicate to the sitting judge as to whether or not a presumption of undue hardship exists in that reaffirmation agreement.  If a presumption of undue hardship exists, the judge will make a decision as to whether he will approve the agreement or whether or not he would like to set a reaffirmation agreement hearing on the matter.  A hearing on the matter is an opportunity for the judge to question the debtor, to determine whether or not that agreement should be made effective.  If there is an extreme hardship on the debtor, for example, the debtor’s budget is completely upside down to the point where there’s no way they can afford that vehicle, the judge may deny that reaffirmation.  In most cases, the reaffirmation agreement hearings have been successful.  Debtors, with the advice of counsel, have been able to explain to the court, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she can make the required payments on a reaffirmation agreement.  In many cases, the vehicle in question is what the debtor needs to get to work.  Without the vehicle, the debtor may be under more of an undue hardship than the reaffirmation agreement.  Lastly, the reaffirmation agreement, hearing, is pretty much a non-event.

Link