From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Brill

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 27, 1979
No. 78 B 1236 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1979)

Opinion

No. 78 B 1236

February 27, 1979


Bankrupts — Denial of Discharge — Extensions of Time


Where a court grants an order, responding to a creditor's request for an extension of time within which to file a complaint and objections to dischargeability under Section 17c(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, and the order refers specifically to Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act and the nondischargeability of debts, the Court is precluded from reading the order to be applicable to both Sections 14 and 17.

Several counts in plaintiffs' complaint, filed under an extension of time granted by the court, were directed to objections to the bankrupt's discharge under Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act. These counts were dismissed as untimely. The plaintiffs had obtained three extensions of time under applications and orders which were prepared by their counsel and which patently applied to "complaints and objections to dischargeability of debts claimed to be non-dischargeable and . . . objections to the report of exempt property (sic) pursuant to Section 17c(2) of the Bankruptcy Act." The extension orders referred only to non-dischargeability of debts under Section 17.

On reargument of the order for dismissal, the plaintiffs urged that the Court read the word "complaints" to include both Sections 17 and 14.

The Court refused to follow the suggestion of plaintiffs giving as their reason the vast differences in consequences of the two sections. The Court added that their refusal is especially appropriate in this situation where the plaintiffs have specifically referred to Section 17 and "dischargeability of debts" and have omitted any reference to Section 14 or "discharge" in their order for an extension of time.

Further, the Court denied plaintiffs request for a nuc pro tunc order expressly extending their time to file a complaint under Section 14 of the Act Objecting to the bankrupt's discharge. The Court held that once the time for objections has expired under Section 14, no authority exists to extend it nunc pro tunc. See Sec. 14b [§ 727(c) at ¶ 10,127 and Sec. 17c(2) ar ¶ 2154.


Summaries of

In re Brill

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 27, 1979
No. 78 B 1236 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1979)
Case details for

In re Brill

Case Details

Full title:IN RE BRILL

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 27, 1979

Citations

No. 78 B 1236 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1979)