Further, the bankruptcy court held that the debtor had concealed his beneficial interest in the stock, with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2) and therefore was not entitled to a discharge in bankruptcy. In Re MacDonald, 101 B.R. 836, 844 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1989). The appellants now argue that the bankruptcy court made errors of law and fact in reaching its decisions to deny the debtor's discharge in bankruptcy and to order the turnover to the trustee of corporate stock held in the name of Earl MacDonald. The appellants urge this Court to reverse the bankruptcy court's judgments, and have asked the Court to schedule oral argument.
In Bottone, the court noted that the doctrine of continuing concealment is "well recognized" in the Massachusetts. SeeShamban v. O'Brien (In re O'Brien), 190 B.R. 1, 4 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1995); Pelham Plate Glass, Inc. v. Charette (In re Charette), 148 B.R. 94, 96 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1992); Nelson v. Peters (In re Peters), 106 B.R. 1, 4-5 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1989);Cahillane v. MacDonald (In re MacDonald), 101 B.R. 836, 844 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1989), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 114 B.R. 326, 334-35 (D. Mass. 1990). Thus, concealment of a property interest may be grounds for denial of a debtor's discharge, such as where a debtor has transferred property, but continues to use it as collateral, live there, make mortgage and other expense payments, and list it as an asset on a financial statement.
1992); Nelson v. Peters (In re Peters), 106 B.R. 1, 4-5 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1989); Cahillane v. MacDonald (In re MacDonald), 101 B.R. 836, 844 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1989), rev'd, 114 B.R. 326, 334-35 (D.Mass. 1990); see also Green v. Toy, 171 F.2d 979, 979 (1st Cir. 1949) (under Bankruptcy Act of 1898). This Court must confess some lack of reverence for that "doctrine."