Case No. 88-00117.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Columbia.
January 14, 2011
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND MOTION TO ANNUL BANKRUPTCY PETITION AND REQUEST TO SCHEDULE A RELATED HEARING
S. TEEL, Bankruptcy Judge
Michael O’Connor, the debtor’s brother, has filed a second motion to annul the bankruptcy petition and request to schedule a related hearing (Dkt. No. 201).[1]
In his motion, O’Connor alleges that “through a number of fraudulent property conveyances, partnership agreements and forgeries between Carmen O’Connor and others the above bankruptcy petitions were filed.” According to his motion, O’Connor did not learn that this bankruptcy case, or the related case as to which he also seeks annulment, In re Michael M. O’Connor, Case No. 88-00118,
Page 2
had been filed until November 2007.[2] As concerns this case, O’Connor alleges that the petition should be annulled because the debtor listed assets that she claimed to have acquired through an invalid settlement agreement. Specifically, O’Connor contends that the settlement agreement and release dated May 31, 1990, purporting to resolve a dispute concerning the Pier 7 Limited Partnership, contains O’Connor’s forged signature. Likewise, O’Connor contends that the debtor falsely listed O’Connor as a co-debtor with regard to the settlement agreement and amounts owed to Thomas Cassidy.
O’Connor does not challenge the authenticity of the debtor’s signature that appears on the petition, nor does he contest that the debtor voluntarily commenced this case to seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.[3] He likewise does not challenge the debtor’s eligibility to be a debtor in bankruptcy. Rather, O’Connor alleges that the debtor made false representations on her schedules, which representations are based, in part, on a settlement agreement that includes O’Connor’s forged signature. Even if the court accepts all of O’Connor’s allegations as true,
Page 3
the motion does not state grounds for annulment of this bankruptcy case. Were this case still pending, O’Connor’s allegations might support a motion to dismiss or a complaint either objecting to discharge or seeking revocation of discharge. The debtor having received a discharge on November 30, 1993, however, it is too late to object to discharge, and any complaint seeking to revoke the debtor’s discharge would be untimely. See 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)-(e). O’Connor may have grounds to challenge the enforceability of the settlement agreement, or the validity of any transfer of an interest in property that occurred in reliance upon the enforceability of that agreement, but he has failed to articulate any basis for annulment of this bankruptcy case. It is thus
ORDERED that O’Connor’s Second Motion to Annul Bankruptcy Petition and Request to Schedule a Related Hearing (Dkt. No. 201) is DENIED.
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: January 13, 2011.