Simons v. Lucas, 20-03143

Kandise Nadine Lucas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Amanda Simons filed an adversary proceeding, resulting in a July 28, 2022, judgment in her favor against Lucas, which was found to be non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(6).
After the case was closed, Lucas (the debtor) moved pro se to reopen the adversary proceeding, seeking to vacate the judgment based on alleged fraud by parties and newly discovered evidence.
Lucas's Motion was filed more than one year after entry of the original judgment.
The bankruptcy court has discretion to reopen closed cases under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b), but only where it would not be futile and where relief can be accorded.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), as adopted in bankruptcy via Rule 9024, governs motions to vacate judgments for fraud or newly discovered evidence, subject to a one-year deadline from judgment entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to reopen the adversary proceeding	Judgment should stand	Reopening warranted due to fraud, new evidence	Denied; reopening would be futile
Timeliness of the motion to vacate judgment	Motion is untimely	Action justified by newly discovered grounds	Motion filed too late under Rule 60(c)
Applicability of Rule 60(b) and deadline to adversary judgment	Judgment is final	Judgment should be revisited for fraud/new evidence	Rule’s one-year deadline bars motion
Whether newly cited legal authority compels a different outcome	No applicable precedent	Cites inapplicable/incorrect authority	Debtor’s cited authority not relevant

In re Jones, 367 B.R. 564 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007) (court discretion in reopening bankruptcy cases)
Hawkins v. Landmark Fin. Co., 727 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1984) (discretion in reopening bankruptcy case for cause)
In re Potes, 336 B.R. 731 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2005) (futility of reopening case if no relief possible)