In re: Rodney Frank Krenz, AZ-15-1396-FLJu

Debtor Rodney Krenz filed Chapter 13 in Feb 2010 but did not schedule a $100,000 loan he owed to ex-spouse Tracy Neuman; Neuman had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy but received no formal notice.
From 2007–Jan 2014 Krenz made monthly $600 payments to Neuman; he stopped payments in Jan 2014 and in Aug 2014 amended his schedules to list the debt.
Neuman objected to the amendment and to discharge, alleging Krenz hid assets (including a house bought in a sister’s name) and committed fraud to avoid the debt; the court held hearings, allowed Neuman to file a late proof of claim, and set an evidentiary hearing on dischargeability.
After hearing, the bankruptcy court granted a directed verdict / judgment on partial findings for Krenz, finding no preponderant evidence of fraud, hidden assets, theft, or perjury relevant to discharge, and denied Neuman’s objections.
Neuman appealed both the Sept. 25, 2014 minutes (denying her objection to the amendment) and the Nov. 10, 2015 order (denying objection to discharge). The BAP affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allowing Krenz to amend schedules and extending time to file a claim violated due process	Neuman: amendment was belated and deprived her of notice and opportunity to challenge plan confirmation or dischargeability	Krenz: Neuman had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy since 2010 and was therefore on inquiry notice; court afforded procedures and a late claims period	Appeal of the Sept. 25, 2014 minutes was untimely; on the merits, no due process violation—Neuman had actual notice, opportunity to be heard, and suffered no prejudice
Whether bankruptcy court erred in overruling Neuman’s objection to discharge (fraud, hidden assets, bad faith)	Neuman: presented allegations and some documents showing Krenz hid property (Vinedo property via sister), travel spending, and other misconduct that should bar discharge	Krenz: presented evidence refuting fraud claims; Trustee found no indicia of fraud; sister testified she purchased property for her own use	BAP affirmed judgment on partial findings for Krenz: record did not show preponderant evidence of fraud or hiding assets; appellant failed to provide complete transcript so BAP could not review evidentiary record fully

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due-process notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Brown v. Wilshire Credit Corp. (In re Brown), 484 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2007) (bankruptcy finality: pragmatic approach and complete act of adjudication)
Rosson v. Fitzgerald (In re Rosson), 545 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2008) (even where process defective, appellant must show prejudice)
Mullen v. Hamlin (In re Hamlin), 465 B.R. 863 (9th Cir. BAP 2012) (minute entry can be a dispositive order for appeal if it meets formal criteria)