Summary:
In this case, the bankruptcy court’s retelling of the facts (or allegations of facts) surrounding a failed friendship, a failed car wash and the ownership of a 1968 Ford Mustang could serve as a prospectus for a reality television show.
The issue ultimately revolved around the validity of a replacement title obtained by Morgan from the DMV. The court held that the burden fell on Morgan to establish that the subsequent Title Application was valid. Due to inaccuracies in the agreement and on the title application, the Court found that Morgan failed to carry that burden and accordingly both denied Morgan’s Motion for Relief from Stay to prosecute a state court action and also ordered turnover of the vehicle.
The bankruptcy court also held that the Proof of Claims deadline was “absolute”, except for the enumerated bases under Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c), none of which applied to the late filed claim of Morgan. (Even though Morgan was only notified of the case 21 days prior to the expiration of the claims period.)
Morgan sought an extension of time to object to the Debtor’s discharge. Finding that while §1328(f) required objections to discharge based on a previous discharge to be brought within 60 days of the §341 Meeting of Creditors, there was no similar deadline for raising objections to discharge in Chapter 13 for other reasons.
Lastly, while the bankruptcy court could not extend the time for Morgan to object to the discharge of his claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). Where a creditor alleging fraud was neither neither listed nor scheduled in time to permit it to file a dischargeability complaint, § 523(a)(3)(B) is the proper remedy for objecting to discharge of the debt.
For a copy of the opinion, please see:
Markey- Burden of Proving Ownership; Deadlines for Filing Proof of Claim and Objection to Discharge/Dischargeability.pdf
Blog comments