In re James
487 B.R. 587
Bankr. N.D. Ga.2013Background
- Debtor filed a Motion to Reopen Chapter 13 on Sept. 6, 2012; Intown opposes.
- Debtor, age 77, resides at 539 Baker Circle, NW, Atlanta; property owned free and clear since 1994.
- Debtor’s 2005 Chapter 13 plan provided 100% payment to creditors and was discharged in 2009.
- Intown purchased adjacent parcel in 2002 and pursued several state court actions, including a 2004 quiet title suit and an ejectment action; Debtor was not served and did not appear in those actions.
- Debtor did not list Intown as a creditor in her Chapter 13 Schedules; Trustee did not pursue the related tort/estate claims; Debtor’s discharge closed the case in 2009.
- Georgia state court litigation culminated in a 2011/2012 sequence ending in a Georgia Supreme Court reversal on a key point; Intown later sought summary judgment on Debtor’s counterclaims; Debtor moved to reopen to disclose those counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars reopening. | James argues Intown’s delay in seeking relief is unconscionable. | Intown contends significant prejudice and undue delay justify denying reopening. | Laches not established; no egregious delay or prejudice shown. |
| Whether judicial estoppel prevents reopening. | James contends no intentional concealment and no intent to mislead the court. | Intown asserts concealment was intentional to benefit debtor’s estate. | Judicial estoppel inapplicable; no calculated conduct to mock the judiciary. |
| Whether to reopen under § 350 for “other cause” to administer assets and protect the counterclaim. | Reopening is necessary to disclose and potentially pursue the counterclaim for the benefit of the estate. | Reopening may be unnecessary since creditors are already fully paid and no asset would benefit them. | Case should be reopened to disclose the counterclaim; Schedule B amended; asset administered; case to re-close if no further actions within 28 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Upshur, 317 B.R. 446 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2004) (discretion to reopen a closed case depends on facts)
- In re Barger, 279 B.R. 900 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2002) (reopening discretion guided by peculiar facts)
- In re Lewis, 273 B.R. 739 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2001) (principles for exercising discretion to reopen)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (framework for judicial estoppel (oath, inconsistency, mockery))
- Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. v. Harvey, 260 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir.2001) ( Harvey test elements for judicial estoppel)
- Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. (In re Burnes), 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.2002) (intent required for calculated concealment; not mere error)
- Grant v. George Schumann Tire & Battery Co., 908 F.2d 874 (11th Cir.1990) (trustee not compensated for recovery of excess assets)
- Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortgage Corp., 453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir.2006) (failure to amend plan constitutes inconsistency under oath)
- Delfino, 351 B.R. 786 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2006) (inappropriate factual similarity; delay as inapposite)
- In re Maloy, 195 B.R. 517 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1996) (factors in reopening decisions)