dischargeability of contingent judgments
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:38 am
I duked it out on this issue once. I filed chapter 13 for a guy and his enemy ( aformer client) filed an "objection to ch 13" saying my client (an attorney) was a real bad guy and lied and cheated and stealed. We converted to ch 7 and the bad guy blew the nondischargeability deadline (by two days). He argued that the objection was the same as a complaint and the late complaint was therefore really only an amendment. He had cases supporting the concept. Greenwald disagreed and the BAP affirmed. FRCP 8 and 9 deal with what must be in the complaint. I thought the bad guy's atty was pretty creative but a lot of the stuff FRCP 8 requires was not in the first objection. Judge Klein wrote a concurring opinion accusing me a playing games and they all nagged at me about be so pickey - it was only two days late. I felt like saying, "What if he filed the notice of appeal two days late, would yawl have been so magnanimous?" Bottom line is that the AP was dismissed.
Btw, the Supreme Court ruled in Kontrick that the 60 days is not jurisdictional. You must move to dismiss or you can waive the infirmity.
>
> Case name is "In re Gottlieb." Debtor's name is Richard Gottlieb. I thought
> all BAP decisions are published.
> Silvio Nardoni
> Attorney at Law
> 535 N. Brand Blvd.
> Suite 501
> Glendale, CA 91203
> 818-550-1800
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 5:15:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] dischargeability of contingent judgments
>
>
>
> Was the case published? Id love to see the opinion.
>
> - John D. Faucher
>
>
> On 8/12/10 4:44 PM, "Silvio Nardoni" wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Beware this easy conclusion if you are in front of Judge Robles. In a case I
> >worked on, he held that the MRS was the functional equivalent of a complaint to
> >object to discharge of the debt, and was upheld by the BAP.
> >
> >Silvio Nardoni
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> >To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 1:25:23 PM
> >Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] dischargeability of contingent judgments
> >
> > Message
> >
> >I think Plaintiff is done. Complaint needed to be timely filed. Interesting
> >argument for Courts who prefer to abstain and skip out on their duty of hearing
> >these cases.
> >
> >
> >David A. Tilem
> >Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> >Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> >206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale , CA 91206
> >
> >Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
> >
> >* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal Specialization.
> > Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
f GaryB
> >Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:13 PM
> >To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [cdcbaa] dischargeability of contingent judgments
> >
> >
> >Have a client whose Chapter 7 was recently discharged.
> >
> >He was a defendant in a lawsuit alleging fraud and misrepresentation as a
> >mortgage broker. He denies that he was the mortgage broker for plaintiffs.
> >Client filed for Chapter 7 during discovery listing the lawsuit in the statement
> >of financial affairs, but not on schedule F. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
> >Relief from Automatic Stay and obtained a Court Order terminating the Automatic
> >Stay as to plaintiffs and permitting them to pursue their action in a
> >non-bankruptcy forum with limitations on enforcement of the Judgment. Judge
> >suggested to plaintiffs' attorney to bring an action to determine
> >dischargeability of debt. Plaintiffs failed to do it and Client received a
> >discharge.
> >
> >
> >QUESTION: CAN PLAINTIFFS STILL PURSUE CLIENT IN THEIR LAWSUIT AND WHAT CAN
> >CLIENT DO?
> >
> >
> >I would appreciate any feedback.
> >
> >Please send your comments offline to garybarsegianesq@...
> > .
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> - John D. Faucher
> >>>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.