Diane Weil v. Edward Elliott, 859 F.3d 812

Debtor Edward Elliott filed Chapter 7 and knowingly omitted ownership of his home from his schedules and misrepresented his residence.
Elliott received a § 727(a) discharge; the fraud was not discovered while the case was pending.
About 15 months after discharge, the Chapter 7 trustee learned of the fraud and sought revocation under 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1).
§ 727(e)(1) provides that a trustee may request revocation under § 727(d)(1) within one year after discharge.
Bankruptcy Court found fraudulent nondisclosure and revoked Elliott’s discharge; the BAP vacated, holding § 727(e)(1) was jurisdictional and the trustee’s request was time-barred.
Ninth Circuit reversed the BAP, holding § 727(e)(1) is a non‑jurisdictional, waivable statute-of-limitations claim‑processing rule and remanded to reinstate the revocation judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Trustee)	Defendant's Argument (Elliott)	Held
Whether § 727(e)(1)’s one‑year deadline is jurisdictional	Deadline is a claim‑processing rule; non‑jurisdictional and can be forfeited	Deadline is jurisdictional; untimely filing deprives court of subject‑matter jurisdiction	§ 727(e)(1) is non‑jurisdictional; it is an ordinary statute‑of‑limitations/claim‑processing rule and may be forfeited if not timely raised
Whether the trustee forfeited the timeliness defense	Trustee filed after one year but timeliness was not raised by Elliott below, so defense was forfeited	Elliott did not assert untimeliness but BAP must address jurisdictional defects sua sponte	Because the time bar is non‑jurisdictional, Elliott forfeited the defense by failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court
Whether the discharge should be revoked on the merits	Trustee established that Elliott knowingly and fraudulently concealed the home and misrepresented residence	Elliott did not challenge the bankruptcy court’s factual findings on appeal	Bankruptcy court’s finding of fraudulent concealment stands; discharge revocation should be reinstated

United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (Sup. Ct.) (exception‑free deadlines are not jurisdictional absent clear congressional statement)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (Sup. Ct.) (time limits in bankruptcy rules are non‑jurisdictional and constitute affirmative defenses)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Sup. Ct.) (text must speak in jurisdictional terms to be jurisdictional)
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (Sup. Ct.) (statutory filing deadlines may be non‑jurisdictional)
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct.) (statute of limitations treated as claim‑processing rule)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (Sup. Ct.) (post‑Kontrick treating certain bankruptcy Code deadlines as non‑jurisdictional)
Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishing jurisdictional grants from claim‑processing rules)
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (Sup. Ct.) (discussion of statutes of repose and repose purposes)