In re: Francisco Infante Ramon

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico·Decided April 17, 2012·No. 08-01293·Unknown

Opinion

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO IN RE: : CASE NO. 08-1293 (ESL) : FRANCISCO INFANTE RAMON : CHAPTER 7 : : Debtor : ____________________________________: OPINION AND ORDER There are two interrelated matters pending before this court. The first is the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to debtor’s claim of exemptions and debtor’s opposition thereto. The second is the debtor’s opposition to the “trustee’s sine die continuance and request to deem §341 meeting closed.” The motion to deem the 341 meeting closed stands unopposed. The Chapter 7 trustee objects to the amended claim of exemptions filed by the debtor on September 9, 2011 over an undisclosed post petition extrajudicial personal injury settlement. The debtor claimed an exemption in the amount of $4,000 for attorneys fees collected without court authorization; and $16,000 for an award of damages resulting from pain and suffering. The Chapter 7 trustee alleges, and the record corroborates, that the amendment was made after the Chapter 13 trustee had filed an objection to debtor’s amended claim of exemptions. The Chapter 13 trustee’s objection to exemptions was filed on July 21, 2011 and the debtor voluntarily converted the case to Chapter 7 on August 3, 2011. The debtor answered the Chapter 13 trustee’s objection to exemptions on August 25, 2011. The debtor subsequently, that is, on September 9, 2011 filed amended schedules, including an amended schedule C (Exemptions). The Chapter 7 trustee alleges that the exemption over the attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,000 exceeds the amounts allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5). The Chapter 7 trustee further alleges that the debtor has not presented any evidence of the quantification of damages in order that the debtor may claim an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11)(D). The debtor opposes the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to exemptions on three grounds: first, the assets claimed as exempt under the Chapter 13 case are not property of the Chapter 7 estate; second, even if the assets are part of the Chapter 7 estate, the objection is late as having been filed 1 beyond the thirty (30) day limitation period in Rule 4003(b) of the Fed. R. Bankr. P., and, third, that Chapter 7 trustee has not met the burden to show that the debtor did not suffer the personal injury damages claimed and, thus, an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Debtor’s amended opposition jexpands his legal support to state that after considering the effects of a conversion to chapter 7, as set in 11 U.S.C. § 348()\(1(A) the postpetition cause of action is not property of the Chapter 7 jestate. A. Adjournment/Closing of the 341 Meeting of Creditors Section 341(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 341(a), requires that a meeting of Icreditors be convened "{w}ithin a reasonable time after the order for relief." Rule 2003(a) of the Fed. Bankr. P. provides the time frame within which a meeting of creditors must be scheduled for each chapter under which a bankruptcy petition may be filed. Rule 2003(e) states that "[t]he meeting may be adjourned from time to time by announcement at the meeting of the adjourned date and time [without further written notice." Rule 2003(e) specifically requires that the date and time to which the meeting of creditors is adjourned be announced at the meeting. A chapter 7 trustee may not hold the Imeeting open indefinitely or sine die as such a continuance will unduly prolong the time to object the debtor's claimed exemptions. In re Newman, 428 B.R. 257 (B.A.P. Ist Cir. 2010). See also re Cushing, 401 B.R. 528 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2009). The 30-day period set forth in Rule 4003(b)(1) the trustee to object to a debtor's claim of exemptions must be strictly interpreted. In re Kuhnel, 495 F. 3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). Trustees should continue or adjourn a meeting of creditors following Rule 2003(e). The date time of the adjourned meeting must be specified in the meeting minutes. Otherwise, the meeting be deemed closed. In chapter 13 cases, as was the case in In re Cushing, this ruling may operate llagainst the debtor and cause the dismissal of the petition. In chapter 7 cases, as was the case in In re Newman, the debtor may benefit by enforcing the 30-day period to object to exemptions set forth in Rule 4003(b)(1). In view of the above, the court hereby grants debtor’s request to deem the 341 meeting closed as of September 13, 2011. Although the court has granted debtor's motion to deem the 341 meeting closed as of the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re: Francisco Infante Ramon, (prb 2012).

In re: Francisco Infante Ramon (In re: Francisco Infante Ramon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Owen v. Owen
500 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Rousey v. Jacoway
544 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Russell v. Kuhnel (In Re Kuhnel)
495 F.3d 1177 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Pasquina v. Cunningham
513 F.3d 318 (First Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Cushing (Cushing)
401 B.R. 528 (First Circuit, 2009)
Newman v. White (In Re Newman)
428 B.R. 257 (First Circuit, 2010)