IN RE MADAJ
149 F.3d 467 (1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Zirnhelt (D) appealed an order affirming the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court, which discharged an unlisted debt to Ds, even though Madaj's (P) motion to reopen the case was denied.
FACTS: Ds, husband and wife, loaned a substantial amount of money to P, their foster child. P promised to repay the loan within a few months out of anticipated insurance proceeds from a fire loss. Instead of repaying the loan, P filed Chapter 7 but failed to include D in the list of creditors filed with the petition. P eventually obtained a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, and their case was closed. D, unaware of the bankruptcy proceeding after begging for the money back filed suit in state court and obtained a judgment against P for the unpaid balance of the loan. P moved to reopen their Chapter 7 proceeding. D objected to the motion claiming that in light of their repeated requests for payment and P's protests of poverty, P's memory lapse was not credible, and that P had failed to list the debt because they intended to defraud the Creditors. D opposed the reopening of the Chapter 7 proceeding because they believed, and still believe, that an unlisted debt is not discharged, and that P ought not be permitted to now list this debt and obtain its discharge. If the debt had been timely scheduled, it would have been dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523, and that even if the debt had been listed and a proof of claim had been filed, because this was a no-asset case, there would have been no payment on the debt. The Court denied the Ps' motion to reopen, and held that the debt to D was discharged. The District Court affirmed. Ds' appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment