Opinion
No. B2 76-2426
April 4, 1979
Time Limitations — Extensions of Time — Filing of Proof of Claim — Discharge of Debts
Absent a showing of fraud or manifest injustice, the court need not permit an unscheduled creditor to file a proof of claim beyond the time permitted by Rule 302(e) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The result of the failure to duly schedule a creditor in a bankruptcy case is that the debt is not discharged under Section 17a(3) of the Bankruptcy Act.
The bankruptcy trustee objected to the claim of the creditor on the basis that it had been filed more than six months from the starting date set by the Court for the running of the six-month claim period under Rule 302(e). The creditor alleged that it should be allowed, in the exercise of the court's equitable jurisdiction, to file its claim at a later date by virtue of its non-notification of the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.
In the case of In re Econo-Mulch Company, CCH Dec. ¶ 67,214, the court indicated that the effect of the failure to duly schedule a creditor in a bankruptcy case is that the debt is not discharged. "Absent a showing of fraud or manifest injustice, there is no ground for the extending of the time to file a proof of claim, and, in fact, there may be no power in the Bankruptcy Court to do so." Because this case is controlled by the Econo-Mulch decision, supra, the court in the instant case disallowed the creditor's claim to be considered if, and only if, all timely filed claims were paid in full in the case. See Sec. 17a(3) at ¶ 2146 and Sec. 523(a)(3) at ¶ 9229, and Rule 302(e) at ¶ 20,102.