Durham v. Yancey (In Re Yancey)
This text of 46 B.R. 621 (Durham v. Yancey (In Re Yancey)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
The issue before us is whether we should grant the debtor’s motion to dismiss a creditor’s complaint which requests that we set aside a transfer of property of the estate that was made to the debtor, that we grant an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) or (a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”) and that we revoke the discharge, For the reasons stated herein we will grant the motion to dismiss the complaint.
*622 The facts of this case are as follows: 1 The plaintiff, one Barbara M. Durham (“Durham”), was injured in 1981 while she was riding as a passenger on a motorcycle operated by the debtor. The following year Durham instituted an action in trespass against the debtor in state court which culminated in the entry in 1983 of an $9,313.75 arbitration award. One month later, on August 8, 1983, the debtor filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Code. The only debt listed in the petition was that owed to Durham. The schedules also indicated that the debtor was claiming a $6,700.00 exemption in the “Charles M. Yancey Trust.” An order of discharge was entered on November 1, 1983, and the case was closed on March 3, 1984. Durham “petitioned” 2 us to reopen the case for the purpose of filing the instant complaint, which relief we granted on July 18, 1984.
In November of 1984, Durham filed the complaint before us which is something less than the Blackstonian ideal. In fact, Durham requests relief against the trustee in utter disregard of his absence from this action. In the complaint Durham asserts six counts for relief, the first of which requests an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2) 3 on the allegation that the debt- or received funds from the trust within 180 days after the filing of the petition which funds were property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5). 4 In the second count Durham requests an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6) on the contention that the motorcycle injury was caused by the debt- or’s wilful and malicious actions. Accord *623 ing to § 523(c), 5 actions under § 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6) must be commenced by the creditor to whom the debt is owed or otherwise the debt will be discharged. Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) 6 states, crystal-clearly, that such an action must be commenced no later than sixty days after the first date set for the first meeting of creditors. Since this period obviously expired prior to Durham’s filing of the complaint, we will dismiss these counts of the complaint which are predicated on § 523(a).
*622 (C) as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy or of a death benefit plan.
*623 In the third count of her complaint Durham uses a broad brush by urging us to “set aside the entire bankruptcy proceeding” for the debtor’s failure to disclose his access to the trust property and requests us to enter judgment against the trustee of the res. By the term “set[ting] aside the entire bankruptcy proceeding” we must assume that Durham is requesting us to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 707 7 of the Code. But, under that provision dismissal is available only because of unreasonable delay or the nonpayment of certain fees and charges. Neither, of course, is applicable here. As to the second basis for relief requested in the third count, i.e., judgment against the trustee of the res, we cannot enter judgment against the trustee on any basis for the obvious reason that the trustee is not named as a party to this action. Thus we will dismiss the third count of Durham’s complaint.
In the fourth count, Durham requests an order directing the debtor to pay any money he received post-petition from the trust to her (Durham) on the theory that the money was property of the estate to which money the debtor was not entitled. We must likewise dismiss this count of the complaint since the trustee in bankruptcy, as representative of the estate, would be the proper party to commence an action to recover such funds as well as the proper party to accept receipt of those misdirected funds.
The fifth count of the complaint is dupli-cative of the fourth count, while the sixth count is redundant of the first and second. Consequently, we will dismiss the fifth and sixth counts of the complaint.
*624 Lastly, in the preamble to the first count of the complaint Durham “seeks to revoke a discharge pursuant to Rule 701(4) 8 ” on the basis of fraud. 9 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), which is incorporated here by Bankruptcy Rule 7009, “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” Gelrod, Fox & Co. v. Grossman (In Re Grossman), 46 B.R. 319 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1985). The cause of action to revoke the discharge in the case before us is predicated on fraud but Durham has failed to allege with particularity the so-called fraudulent basis by which the discharge was obtained. Consequently, this portion of the complaint is without merit.
Since we conclude that in her complaint Durham has asserted no basis on which relief can be afforded, we will grant the debtor’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
. In adjudicating a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, we must view the facts in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff. We can grant such a motion only if it appears certain that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any statement of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. Hishon v. King & Spalding, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2233, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); 2A Moore’s Federal Practice 12.08 (2d ed. 1982).
. A motion, rather than a petition, appears to be the proper vehicle for reopening a case. Bankruptcy Rule 5010.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 B.R. 621, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-yancey-in-re-yancey-paeb-1985.