Wright v. Asbury (In Re Asbury)

250 B.R. 59, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 792, 2000 WL 913974
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland·Decided March 10, 2000·No. 19-12143·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*60 MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINTS OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE AND TO DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT

JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.

In 1992, the plaintiffs filed a complaint, an amended complaint, and a second amended complaint to determine dis-chargeability of debt, which this Court dismissed at trial because the evidence related solely to the general denial of a discharge in bankruptcy, but it was too late to amend the complaint because the deadline had passed for bringing complaints objecting to discharge. See Wright v. As bury, Adversary Proceeding No. 92-5257-JS. After the second amended complaint was dismissed and while the debtor’s instant Chapter 7 case was still open, the plaintiffs filed the instant complaint objecting to discharge. After a two-day hearing, the Court will dismiss the instant complaint on grounds of res judicata, issue preclusion and limitations. The plaintiffs and defendant are pro se.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On May 3,1991, the debtor, Barry Steve Asbury, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in this Court. On September 23, 1991, the case was converted to Chapter 7.

The plaintiffs are Stephen M. Wright and Stephen M. Wright, CPA, P.A., the latter a Maryland professional association.

*61 On June 1, 1992, the plaintiffs filed the first complaint entitled “Complaint Objecting to the Dischargeability of a Debt,” which, citing no provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, prayed a determination that “the indebtedness owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is nondischargeable,” and “for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Five Dollars,” incorrectly expressed in numerals as “$1,465.00.”

On September 1, 1992, the complaint was dismissed upon the pro se defendant’s motion for failure of the complaint to set forth a jurisdictional statement. Order of September 1,1992 [P. 7],

On October 14, 1992, this Court denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration because the amended complaint did not cite the underlying sections of the Bankruptcy Code for the determination of dis-chargeability. Order entered October 14, 1992 [P. 11],

On November 16, 1992, by order [P. 14] of even date, this Court vacated the dismissal and permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, entitled “Second Amended Complaint Objecting to the Dischargeability of a Debt” [P. 15], which cited for its authority 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (a)(4).

Meanwhile, on March 1, 1994, this Court granted the debtor a Chapter 7 discharge.

On September 22, 1995, the plaintiffs filed a pretrial order [P. 39], which cited subsections of Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code, rather than Section 523, upon which the complaint was based. Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth grounds for the denial of a discharge, rather than grounds for determining a debt to be nondischargeable.

At trial on September 25, 1995, this Court dismissed the complaint at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case because the only evidence produced by the plaintiff related to grounds for the denial of a discharge, as opposed to the determination of dischargeability. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel at the trial.

On September 20,1996, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland [Nick-erson, J.] reversed and remanded the complaint, holding that this Court should have permitted the plaintiffs to further amend the complaint to set forth a cause of action under Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

On February 27, 1997, this matter came on for hearing on remand, at which time the plaintiffs filed a third complaint entitled “Third Amended Complaint Objecting to Discharge of Debtor Pursuant to Section 727 and Objecting to the Discharge-ability of a Debt Pursuant to Section 523 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.” At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented further evidence in support of the argument that the debtor ought to be denied a discharge pursuant to Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code, for cause, including the debtor’s concealment of assets. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was held sub-curia.

MOTION TO REVOKE DISCHARGE

While a decision was pending on the third amended complaint, on April 9, 1998, the plaintiffs filed the instant motion [P. 82] to revoke/vacate the debtor’s discharge. The motion, which the plaintiffs contended contained newly-discovered information, was found by the Court to be a rehash of the third amended complaint. For the reasons set forth, the third amended complaint and the most recent complaint will be dismissed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The debtor’s discharge which was entered on March 1, 1994, effectively blocked the plaintiff from maintaining the third amended complaint as one objecting to discharge. Such a complaint is fundamentally different from a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a particular debt, which was the original guise in which *62 the complaint was filed. The function of determining a debt to be nondischargeable merely excepts from discharge a debt held by a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs, while the function of denying a discharge in toto has the practical effect of preventing all legitimate debts of a debtor from being discharged in bankruptcy. See Toth v. Ham (In re Ham), 174 B.R. 104, 107-08 0Bankr.S.D.Ill.1994). Dischargeability of debt is governed by Section 523 1 of the *64 Bankruptcy Code, while objections to dis- 727. 2 charge are authorized by Code Section

*65 A creditor seeking to determine the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to Section 523(c) must file a complaint within sixty (60) days after the first date set for the Section 341 meeting of creditors or seek an extension of time to object before the limitation period has expired. Fed. R.Bankr.P. 4007(c). 3 Section 523(c) requires that a creditor seek a determination of nondischargeability as to debts arising under Section 523(a)(2),(4),(6) and/or (15). 11 U.S.C. § 523(c); see also In re Jeffrey, 169 B.R. 25, 26 (Bankr.D.Md.1994). Because there is no “sufficient identity” between an objection to discharge pursuant to Section 727 and a request for determination of the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to Section 523, a timely-filed complaint that only sets forth one of the two causes of action may not be amended to include the other cause of action after the expiration of the limitations period.

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

Wright v. Asbury (In Re Asbury), 250 B.R. 59, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 792, 2000 WL 913974 (Md. 2000).

250 B.R. 59 (Wright v. Asbury (In Re Asbury)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Security First Bank v. Deitz (In Re Deitz)
411 B.R. 650 (D. North Dakota, 2009)
In Re Nowinski
291 B.R. 302 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Durns v. Dawson (In Re Dawson)
264 B.R. 13 (N.D. Iowa, 2001)
Allfirst Bank v. Lewis (In Re Lewis)
257 B.R. 431 (D. Maryland, 2001)