George J. Rizkalla

United States Bankruptcy Court
District of Massachusetts
In re: 	)
)
GEORGE J. RIZKALLA, 	) 	Chapter 13
DEBTOR. 	) 	Case No.06-41239-JBR
____________________________________)
DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO REVIEW COURT ORDER
SUSTAINING CREDITOR’S LIMITED OBJECTION [# 31]
This matter having come before the Court on the Debtor’s Motion to Review the Court
Order Sustaining Creditor’s Limited Objection (the “Motion”) to which there were no responses.
After due consideration of the Motion and the underlying pleadings, the Court hereby makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The Motion is a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 made applicable
to bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024. That Rule permits relief from a judgment or
order when there has been clerical mistake and for various reasons set forth in Rule 60(b),
including “(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.”
Thus a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when there has been a significant change in the
law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court; it is not a vehicle for an unsuccessful
party to rehash the same facts and same arguments previously presented. Keyes v. National
Railroad Passenger, 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa. 1991).
2. In this case the underlying order, entered on the docket on September 20, 2006,
sustained the objection to confirmation filed by Citizens Bank of Massachusetts on the grounds
that the plan failed to provide proper treatment of Citizens’ claim, which was at that time a
Case 06-41239 Doc 34 Filed 02/06/08 Entered 02/06/08 12:26:35 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

1The one year limit also set forth in Rule 60(c)(1) does not apply to motions under Rule
60(b)(5), which the Court deeds the Motion to be.
2Counsel’s lack of attention is further compounded by his failure to appear at the
February 5, 2008 hearing on the Motion.
secured claim by virtue of a judicial lien.
3. The Debtor, who had not responded to Citizen’s objection to confirmation, filed a
motion to avoid Citizens’ judicial lien, which the Court allowed, without objection, on October
25, 2006.
3. The Debtor filed the Motion on December 17, 2007, more than one year after the
judicial lien was avoided and only now seeks reconsideration of the September 20, 2006 order
because of the changed circumstances.
4. Rule 60(c)(1) requires that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) “be made
within a reasonable time....”1 Arguably the wait of over one year before bringing this Motion is
not what the drafters of Rule 60 had in mind.2 The Court, however, does not want to punish the
Debtor for the procrastination and inattentiveness of his counsel.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is hereby ALLOWED. The Order of September
20, 2006 sustaining the objection to confirmation is VACATED. The Chapter 13 Trustee is to
file a proposed confirmation order if the plan is otherwise confirmable.
Dated: February 6, 2008 	___________________________
Joel B. Rosenthal
United States Bankruptcy Judge.
Case 06-41239 Doc 34 Filed 02/06/08 Entered 02/06/08 12:26:35 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2