Sarah Marie Muchmore

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Entered on Docket
September 29, 2010

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 | Inre set an
L°y27 OP
10 | SARAH MARTE MUCHMORE, No. 10-16896

11 Debtor(s).
/

12
Memorandum and Order Denying Application to Reopen Case
13

14 Chapter 7 debtor Sarah Muchmore has filed an application to reopen this Chapter 7 case in

15 || order to file an amended schedule to add omitted creditors. Since this amendment would be a

16 || meaningless act, the application to reopen will be denied.

17 Omitted debts are covered by § 523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. The key provision is

18 || “notice or actual knowledge” of the bankruptcy, not scheduling. If this case was closed as a no-asset
19 || case, informing the creditor of it even after it has been closed may be sufficient to discharge the debt if
20 || no grounds to contest the discharge of the debt ever existed. If the debt would have been excepted
21 || from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), but the creditor did not have knowledge of
22 || the case in time to file a timely adversary proceeding pursuant to § 523(c), then the debt may be
23 || nondischargeable under § 523(a)(3). In re Lochrie (9th Cir. BAP 1987) 78 B.R. 257.

24 If there is any dispute as to whether a debt has been discharged, it must be resolved in an

25 || adversary proceeding pursuant to FRBP 7001(6). Such an adversary proceeding may be filed

26 || without reopening the case. In re Staffer, 306 F.3d 967, 972-73 (9" Cir. 2002). Nor is a filing fee

1

us.coveenmes Se. 10-10809 Doc#19 Filed: 09/29/10 Entered: 09/29/10 14:20:59 Page 1 of 2

INFORMATION

GPO

1 | required. FRBP 4007(b).
2 A motion to reopen must be denied when it would not result in any relief. In affirming the
3 || bankruptcy court’s refusal to allow a debtor to reopen his case, the Court of Appeals specifically
4 || noted: “After [a Chapter 7 case] has been closed, dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling;
5 || amendment of [the debtor’s] schedules would thus have been a pointless exercise.” In re Beezley, 994
F.2d 1433, 1434 (9" Cir. 1993). See also In re Madaj, 149 F.3d 467, 468 (9" Cir. 1998)[In a Chapter
7 case “reopening the case merely to scheduled [an omitted] creditor is for all practical purposes a

8 || useless gesture.” ].

9 For the foregoing reasons the application to reopen this case is denied, without prejudice to an
10 || adversary proceeding. If such an adversary proceeding is filed by the debtor, a copy of this
11 || memorandum shall be served on the defendants with the complaint.
12
13 || Dated: September 29, 2010
14

15
16

17
18
19
20

22
23
24
25
26

Case: 10-10809 Doc#19 Filed: 09/29/10 Entered: 09/29/10 14:20:59 Page 2 of 2