In re Doyne

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Dec. 4, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of the creditor’s motion to extend the deadline to object to the debtor’s discharge. The court holds that the deadline for discharge objections is not jurisdictional and thus the bankruptcy court did have discretion to extend the deadline. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditor’s request. The court relied on the factors for equitable tolling set forth in In re Maughan: (1) lack of actual notice of filing requirement; (2) lack of constructive knowledge of filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one’s rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the defendant; and (5) a plaintiff’s reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the notice requirement. The creditor argued that the extension was warranted because his attorney had been in a car wreck that gave him a severe concussion, causing him to miss weeks of work. The bankruptcy court determined that equitable tolling should not be permitted, and the appellate court affirmed. Opinion below.

2014-12-04 – in re doyne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s