Edwin Abiano

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
EDWIN ABIANO, 	No. 09-13949
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Memorandum and Order Denying Application to Reopen Case
_________________
Chapter 7 debtor Edwin Abiano has filed an application to reopen this Chapter 7 case in order
to file an amended schedule to add an omitted creditor. Since this amendment would be a meaningless
act, the application to reopen will be denied.
Omitted debts are covered by § 523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. The key provision is
“notice or actual knowledge” of the bankruptcy, not scheduling. If this case was closed as a no-asset
case, informing the creditor of it even after it has been closed may be sufficient to discharge the debt if
no grounds to contest the discharge of the debt ever existed. If the debt would have been excepted
from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), but the creditor did not have knowledge of
the case in time to file a timely adversary proceeding pursuant to § 523(c), then the debt may be
nondischargeable under § 523(a)(3). 	In re Lochrie (9th Cir.BAP 1987) 78 B.R. 257.
If there is any dispute as to whether a debt has been discharged, it must be resolved in an
adversary proceeding pursuant to FRBP 7001(6). Such an adversary proceeding may be filed
without reopening the case. In re Staffer, 306 F.3d 967, 972-73 (9th Cir. 2002). Nor is a filing fee
Entered on Docket
September 15, 2010
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 09-13949 Doc# 27 Filed: 09/15/10 Entered: 09/15/10 13:30:26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
required. FRBP 4007(b).
A motion to reopen must be denied when it would not result in any relief. In affirming the
bankruptcy court’s refusal to allow a debtor to reopen his case, the Court of Appeals specifically
noted: “After [a Chapter 7 case] has been closed, dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling;
amendment of [the debtor’s] schedules would thus have been a pointless exercise.” In re Beezley, 994
F.2d 1433, 1434 (9th Cir. 1993). 	See also In re Madaj, 149 F.3d 467, 468 (9th Cir. 1998)[In a Chapter
7 case “reopening the case merely to scheduled [an omitted] creditor is for all practical purposes a
useless gesture.”].
For the foregoing reasons the application to reopen this case is denied, without prejudice to an
adversary proceeding. If such an adversary proceeding is filed by the debtor, a copy of this
memorandum shall be served on the defendants with the complaint.
Dated: September 15, 2010
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 09-13949 Doc# 27 Filed: 09/15/10 Entered: 09/15/10 13:30:26 Page 2 of 2