470 B.R. 223
Bankr. M.D. Fla.2012Background
- ARC Pool 1, LLC held a mortgage on the Debtor's property and pursued state-court foreclosure; final foreclosure judgment entered June 13, 2011; Debtor filed bankruptcy before foreclosure sale; ARC obtained stay relief and foreclosure sale occurred November 29, 2011; state court ratified sale December 13, 2011; ARC discovered substantial post-petition damage to the property exceeding $100,000; deadlines to object to discharge or to seek nondischargeability were December 5, 2011; ARC moved to extend both deadlines.
- The damages ARC discovered post-access could form a basis to revoke discharge under § 727(d) and to render a debt nondischargeable under § 523, but the deadlines are limited by Rule 4004 and 4007.
- ARC argues the discharge objection deadline can be extended under Rule 4004 after expiration, while the dischargeability deadline under Rule 4007 cannot be extended.
- Court must decide whether to grant extensions under Rule 4004 for discharge objections and under Rule 4007 for dischargeability, noting the two rules have different extension provisions.
- Court ultimately extends the discharge objection deadline under Rule 4004 but denies extension of the dischargeability deadline under Rule 4007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4004 permits post-deadline extension for discharge objections. | ARC: extension permissible if facts discovered post-deadline reveal basis for revocation. | ARC must seek extension before deadline; Rule 4004 allows late filing only under specified criteria. | Granted; extension allowed under Rule 4004. |
| Whether Rule 4007 permits post-deadline extension for dischargeability actions. | ARC: equitable tolling may extend deadline. | Plain text of Rule 4007(c) requires pre-deadline motion; no tolling. | Denied; no extension permitted under Rule 4007. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (U.S. 2004) (Rule 4004 deadline non-jurisdictional; tolling not addressed by Kontrick)
- In re Alton, 837 F.2d 457 (11th Cir. 1988) (Rule 4007(c) not subject to equitable tolling; binding in Eleventh Circuit)
- In re Benedict, 90 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1996) (Rule 4004/4007 limitations and equitable defenses discussed)
- In re Maughan, 340 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 2004) (equitable defenses referenced in tolling discussions)