Reopening adversary case to overturn judgment
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:39 pm
Yea, I was familiar with the one year limit under FRCP 60(c)(1)
(FRBP 9024). That's about what I figured. Talk about bad timing...
I suppose he could file a new bankruptcy case in a couple of years
and discharge it.
Thanks Nick...
On 6/2/2016 9:27 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa]
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> In general, a final judgment retains its validity after a new law
> ― either statutorily or judicially created ― undoes its legal
> underpinning. Otherwise, every time the law changed, the courts
> would be flooded with litigants seeking to overturn judgments they
> didn’t like.
>
> Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(5) and (6) afford a way to undo a
> judgment if “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
> any other reason that justifies relief,” but 60(c)(1) has a
> one-year limitation measured from the date of the entry of the
> judgment. Your potential client has the additional problem that
> he/she stipulated to the judgment, making it hard to argue that
> there was some injustice inherent to it.
>
> All the best,
>
> Nick
>
> */Nicholas Gebelt/*
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist – State Bar of California
> Board of Legal Specialization
>
> Commissioner, California State Bar’s Bankruptcy Law Advisory
> Commission
>
> Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com ;
> ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 528:*We are a debt
> relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the
> Bankruptcy Code.
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise
> protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or
> copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other
> than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible
> for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com
> and destroy the original message and
> all copies.
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not
> represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice
> for you.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the
> requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform
> you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
> (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot
> be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
> herein.
>
> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:35 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Reopening adversary case to overturn judgment
>
> For the procedural mavens out there....
>
> Assume the following facts:
>
> Debtor files a Chapter 7 case in 2010.
>
> Creditor files a 523(a)(4) action. A stipulated judgment is
> entered in favor of the creditor in 2013.
>
> 3 weeks after the 523 judgment is entered a Supreme Court case
> decision is entered (Bullock vs. Bank Champagne) which held that
> the precise grounds that led to the 523 judgment are not
> considered a defalcation. In other words, had the Supreme Court
> decision been entered 3 weeks earlier (and someone had known about
> it), there never would have been a non-dischargeable judgment entered.
>
> Does the debtor now, in 2016, have any basis or means to reopen
> the adversary to overturn the Judgment based on the subsequent
> Supreme Court ruling?
>
> If so, how would it work procedurally?
>
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *_Mailing Address Only:_*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
> Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.