Macajou Saint-Preux

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MACAJOU SAINT-PREUX,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-01486
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DISMISSING SECOND REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
The debtor has filed a request (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) No.
128 filed March 26, 2007) for an enlargement of time “before the
record is closed.” 	This appears to be a renewal of an earlier
request, denied by the court, which sought “an [e]nlargement of
[t]ime for the period of time to close the record after the
Honorable Court’s Order of Discharge . . . to review the list of
dischargeable debts and to certify that they have all been
included” (D.E. No. 125, filed March 14, 2007).
The debtor apparently thinks that he may have creditors who
were not scheduled, and apparently seeks time to schedule them.
Scheduling the creditors now would not result in the clerk
issuing any notice to such creditors as the clerk already mailed
The Memorandum Decision and Order below is hereby
signed. Dated: April 12, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-01486 Doc 129 Filed 04/13/07 Entered 04/13/07 08:21:32 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
out notice of the debtor’s discharge, and the debtor bears the
responsibility under the local rules of this court of notifying
omitted creditors of the case. 	To the extent the debtor had
creditors who were not scheduled, the debtor may notify those
creditors of his discharge even once the case is closed.
Because this was a case in which no bar date was set for
filing proofs of claim, and because the time has expired for
filing a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) to determine that a
debt was nondischargeable, the scheduling of a creditor now would
add nothing to the impact of the discharge as to that creditor.
See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3); 	In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433, 1434
(9th Cir. 1993) ("After such a case [no asset chapter 7] has been
closed, dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling; amendment
of Beezley's schedules would thus have been a pointless
exercise."); In re Hunter, 116 B.R. 3 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1990)
(because no bar date for filing claims was ever set, an otherwise
dischargeable debt was not excepted from discharge in a no asset
chapter 7 case merely because the creditor was omitted from the
debtor’s schedules).
Although the debtor may wish to schedule creditors for the
potential that the case may be reopened if unscheduled assets are
discovered and that in such a reopened case a bar date for filing
proofs of claims will be set, and unscheduled claims might
thereby become nondischargeable, the debtor has certified that he
Case 05-01486 Doc 129 Filed 04/13/07 Entered 04/13/07 08:21:32 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\Andrew Fausett Temp Docs\Orders\order_extension_denied_2d Request_Saint-Preux.wpd
scheduled all of his assets. 	If that is an accurate
certification, then there is only the highly theoretical
possibility of the debtor owning an asset of which he was
unaware. 	I see no reason to impose upon the clerk’s office a
delay in the closing of this case when there is merely a
theoretical possibility of that nature, and when the debtor
should have accurately scheduled his creditors long ago. 	It is
accordingly
ORDERED that the request (D.E. No. 128 filed March 26, 2007)
for an enlargement of time is DENIED.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; chapter 7 trustee.
Case 05-01486 Doc 129 Filed 04/13/07 Entered 04/13/07 08:21:32 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3