CASE NO. 10-05630-TBB-7.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division.
May 6, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS BENNETT, Bankruptcy Judge
This case is before the Court on Debtor’s Motion to Reopen. It appears that no notice and hearing is necessary for the resolution of this motion. This Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The Court has considered the motion and has taken judicial notice of the contents of the court file pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and finds and concludes as follows.
The debtor(s) filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 21, 2011. On October 28, 2010, this Court issued a notice pursuant to Rule 2002(e) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure indicating that there appeared to be no assets available from which distributions could be made and directing creditors not to file a proof of claim until they received a notice from the Court to do so. No notice to file claims was ever issued. The trustee filed his Final Report on October 29, 2010. An order discharging the debtor(s)
from all dischargeable debts was entered on January 6, 2011. The case was closed on January 6, 2011.
On May 5, 2011, Debtor(s) filed a Motion to Reopen Case. In that motion, the debtor(s) requested that the case be reopened to amend the schedules to add debt(s) that preexisted the filing of the Chapter 7 case. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350, a case may
Page 2
be reopened “to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.” The only stated reason for wanting to reopen the case was to amend the schedules to add the debt(s).
Presumably, the debtor(s) is/are concerned that the debt(s)was/were not discharged because of the failure to properly listit/them. The listing of a debt in the schedules is not a condition of its discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. That section provides that the debtor is “discharged . . . from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief.” Nothing in § 727 prevents an unscheduled debt from being discharged. There is no indication that either the debtor(s) or the creditor(s) wish to file an adversary proceeding regarding the dischargeability of the debt(s) in question.
Therefore, the Court concludes that cause does not exist for the case to be reopened. Any debts which were dischargeable were discharged by the Court’s order of January 6, 2011.[1] Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion to Reopen Case isDENIED.
Page 1
Notice Recipients
395 B.R. 781 (2008) In re Melanie BENNETT and Raburn Bennett, Debtors. In re Toni…
631 B.R. 722 (2021) IN RE: RYAN 1000, LLC, Debtor. In re: Ryan 8641, LLC,…
560 B.R. 786 (2016) IN RE Steve SEDGWICK. Case No. CV 16-00534 (BRO).United States District…
554 B.R. 369 (2016) IN RE: COUTURE HOTEL CORPORATION, Debtor. CASE NO. 14-34874.United States Bankruptcy…
128 B.R. 421 (1991) In re RANDA COAL COMPANY, Debtor. RANDA COAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.…
595 B.R. 127 (2018) IN RE: Deborah WARD, Debtor. Case No.: 8-16-72793-las.United States Bankruptcy Court,…