  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
of financial affairs if not outright fraudulent were at least recklessly indifferent to the truth and supported denial of discharge under § 727(a)(4). It is no defense that the undisclosed property may have little or no value. "[D]ebtors have an 'uncompromising duty to disclose whatever ownership interest [they hold] in property,' and they must 'disclose everything,' rather than 'make decisions about what they deem important enough for parties in interest to know.'").
F. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5)
G. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(6)
H. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(7)
I. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(8)
J. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(9)
K. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(10)
L. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(11)
IV. REVOCATION OF DISCHARGE: 11 U.S.C. § 727(c), (d) AND (e)
V. DISCHARGE INJUNCTION
Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 553 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2008) (Kozinski, Tashima, Smith), cert. granted, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2791, 174 L. Ed. 2d 289 (2009), argued Dec. 1, 2009.
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2195, 174 L. Ed. 2d 99 (2009) (Subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy court to enjoin actions against insurance companies as part of confirmation of Chapter 11 plan in Johns Manville could not be challenged collaterally by parties that had constitutionally sufficient notice.).
In re Kuehn, 563 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2009) (Easterbrook, Ripple, Wood) (University's refusal to provide transcript was act to collect discharged tuition in violation of § 524(a). Debtor had a property interest in and right to receive copy of transcript. "That a student has a right to a copy of the transcript does not leave educational institutions without the means to collect tuition. The University . . . is unable to collect [debtor's] tuition only because it was careless. When [debtor] failed to pay her mounting bills the University could have refused to let her enroll in new classes. It could have refused to let her take exams. It could have refused to award a degree.").
Englund v. SBS Fin. Servs., Inc. (In re Englund), 401 B.R. 377 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (Mahoney, Schermer, Venters) (Debtor's action for contempt for violation of discharge injunction can proceed by motion and did not require adversary proceeding. "Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9020 specifically states that motions for contempt are governed by Rule 9014‹the rule under which contested motions are brought. . . . [T]hat a motion for contempt seeks monetary damages does not transform the action into one that must be pursued as an adversary proceeding. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 provides essentially the same due process requirements for contested matters that are applicable to adversary proceedings and should alleviate any concerns the bankruptcy court might have for the creditor's due process protections.").
©2010 Keith M. Lundin
