Posted by NCBRC - April 28th, 2023
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the debtor’s case sixteen years after its closure to administer an asset the debtor did not own until after his bankruptcy case closed. Gamez v. Lopez (In re Lopez), No. 22-2379 (E.D.N.Y. March 9, 2023). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 22nd, 2022
There was “cause” to permit the debtor to reopen his chapter 7 bankruptcy eight years after closure to allow him to move to amend his schedules, claim a homestead exemption and avoid judicial liens, where there was no evidence that reopening would cause undue prejudice to any party and the debtor’s quest was not clearly futile. In re Paduch, No. 12-32101 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2022).
More than eight years after his chapter 7 bankruptcy case was closed, the debtor sought to reopen in order to claim his homestead exemption in an amount greater than $0 and to list two judicial liens on his schedules as secured debts. In his motion to reopen, the debtor acknowledged that his ultimate goal was to avoid the judicial liens as impairing his homestead exemption. The trustee opposed the motion to reopen based on the doctrine of laches, arguing that the debtor could have claimed the exemption and sought to avoid the liens prior to the conclusion of his bankruptcy case. The trustee further argued that the debtor did not meet the standards for post-closure amendment of bankruptcy schedules. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 30th, 2020
In a lengthy decision addressing a challenge to its order reopening the debtor’s chapter 13 case, a Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina found that the debtor had no duty under the Bankruptcy Code or Rules to disclose a lawsuit that accrued and was filed post-confirmation. In the face of a judicial estoppel defense raised by the Defendants in the debtor’s state personal injury lawsuit, the court stated, “[w]ithout such a duty or knowledge that one existed, Debtor cannot be found to have acted intentionally to mislead this Court.” In re Boyd, No. 13-2924 (Bankr. S.C. July 17, 2020). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 24th, 2016
In the absence of evidence of prejudice, mere delay in moving to reopen is insufficient reason to deny the motion. In re Yonish, 15-8006 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. March 3, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 19th, 2015
Where an undisclosed debt was automatically discharged in the debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy, the court declined to reopen to permit the debtor to add the debt to her schedules. In re Mohammed, No. 13-73191 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. Sept. 4, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 12th, 2015
The doctrine of laches applied a fatal blow to the creditor’s motion to reopen to compel surrender. In re Kourogenis, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 3400, No. 09-32936 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2015). Five years after discharge, a creditor, Green Tree Servicing, sought to reopen Ms. Kourogenis’s chapter 7 bankruptcy to compel surrender of real property which Ms. Kourogenis had opted to surrender in her Statement of Intentions. The court denied the motion. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 27th, 2015
The court was powerless to permit the pro se debtor to rescind her reaffirmation agreement with her car creditor where she failed to rescind the agreement within the sixty-day time limit set forth in section 524(c)(4). In re Galloway-O’Connor, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 3283, No. 15-70981 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. September 29, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - August 28th, 2015
Bank of America’s failure to provide the debtor with a written reaffirmation agreement during the pendency of her bankruptcy led the court to deny its motion to reopen and compel surrender. In re Rodriguez, No. 12-12043 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 23rd, 2015
Equitable considerations weighed in favor of the debtors where, two years after their chapter 7 discharge, a creditor sought to reopen the bankruptcy in order to allow the trustee to administer a district court UCC claim that the debtors filed post-discharge. In re Pinks, No. 12-317 (Bankr. D. S.C. Jan. 21, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 4th, 2015
The bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it refused to reopen the debtor’s chapter 7 case to permit him to amend his schedules to claim his homestead exemption and seek avoidance of judicial liens. Ludvigsen v. Osborne (In re Ludvigsen), No. 14-39 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. January 16, 2015). Read More