James E Oliver, 16-10808

Debtor James E. Oliver (an attorney permanently suspended from this Bankruptcy Court) filed a Chapter 13 petition on March 9, 2016 and proceeded pro se after his counsel withdrew.
Debtor’s schedules in the current case listed fourteen parcels of real property (combined value > $500,000) and a $750,000 homestead; those real properties were not disclosed in three prior Chapter 13 filings.
The U.S. Trustee (UST) moved under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 to examine Oliver and to compel production of probate-related documents, asserting Oliver failed to disclose interests in his mother’s estate and related property transfers.
The Court entered a Rule 2004 order directing Oliver to appear for an examination on May 31, 2016; Oliver filed a Motion to Strike that hearing as moot and attempted to dismiss his Chapter 13 case, but the Court struck the dismissal motion for procedural defects.
The UST also moved to convert the case to Chapter 7 based on nondisclosure. The only pending contested matter was the UST’s conversion motion; the Court denied Oliver’s Motion to Strike the 2004 examination.

Issue	Oliver's Argument	UST / Court's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 2004 exam is moot because Oliver moved to voluntarily dismiss the Chapter 13	The 2004 exam is moot because Oliver seeks voluntary dismissal of the Chapter 13 case	The case was not dismissed; Oliver’s dismissal motion was procedurally defective and stricken, so the exam is not moot	Denied — exam is not moot and remains ordered
Whether Oliver may "strike" the Court’s 2004 order instead of seeking proper relief	Oliver sought to "strike" the order and dismiss the case	Relief from an order requires appropriate procedure (e.g., Rule 60(b)); titles like “strike” are procedurally improper	Denied — motion procedurally infirm; proper remedy is a motion to vacate under applicable rules
Whether UST has standing to bring a Rule 2004 examination	Oliver implied UST lacked a pecuniary interest and thus standing	UST has broad statutory standing under 11 U.S.C. §307 and supervisory duties under 28 U.S.C. §586 to investigate via Rule 2004	Denied — UST has standing and may conduct the 2004 exam
Whether Oliver’s omission of substantial assets excuses a Rule 2004 inquiry	Oliver claimed omissions were inadvertent and would not affect prior Chapters	As an attorney-debtor Oliver had a heightened duty of inquiry and disclosure; omissions of substantial, nonexempt assets warrant investigation	Denied — Court found omission implausible and supported UST’s investigatory needs

In re Robinson, 198 B.R. 1017 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996) (sets out attorney’s duty of reasonable inquiry before filing a petition)
United States Trustee v. Price Waterhouse, 19 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 1994) (discusses UST standing to appear and be heard)
In re Donovan Corp., 215 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2000) (addresses UST authority and role in bankruptcy proceedings)
The Cadle Co. v. King (In re King), 272 B.R. 281 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2002) (debtor must list all creditors and assets under oath)
Fokena v. Tripp (In re Tripp), 224 B.R. 95 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1990) (debtor’s uncompromising duty to disclose ownership interests)