In re Wells

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Alexander

    Case No. 12-50707 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Sep. 1, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Respondents also cite to Wldyka v. Wells (In re Wells), for the proposition that because Mr. Alexander died during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, creditors can still assert claims against assets of a debtor's estate regardless of whether the debtor was discharge. 285 B.R. 921 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2002), ECF No. 59. The Wladyka case is inapposite to this matter because the debtor in Wladyka died before receiving a discharge, whereas Mr. Alexander died after he received a discharge. The Wladyka opinion notes that "[w]ere the issues of discharge to have been settled long before the death of the debtor, the impact of discharge on the probate estate would be quite different."

  2. In re Goodrich

    Bankruptcy Case No. 03-42078, Adv. No. 04-6033 (Bankr. D. Idaho Aug. 4, 2005)

    But it is a question that Plaintiffs will eventually have to address assuming they decide to go forward with this action. Compare Hawkins v. Eads ( In re Eads), 135 B.R. 380, 385-86 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1991) (discussing why a § 727 claim does not abate upon the debtor's death), with Wladyka v. Wells ( In re Wells), 285 B.R. 921, 922-23 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2002) (dismissing §§ 523 and 727 claims upon the death of debtor/defendant "[b]ecause there is no substantive relief that could be given to the plaintiff as a result of the death of the defendant prior to the entry of a discharge. . . .").