Osherow v. Charles (September 15, 2016)
Robbins v. Wolf (September 15, 2016)
Issues: The Court consolidated trial of two adversary proceedings in this bankruptcy case: (1) an adversary proceeding filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee against the ex-spouse of the Debtor to recover multiple real properties as fraudulent transfers (Fraudulent Transfer Adversary Proceeding); and (2) an adversary proceeding filed by the U.S. Trustee against the Debtor to deny the Debtor his bankruptcy discharge (Discharge Adversary Proceeding). In the Fraudulent Transfer Adversary Proceeding, the Trustee sought to avoid the transfer of the Debtor’s real properties under § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”) and to recover the real properties from the Debtor’s ex-spouse under § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. In the Discharge Adversary Proceeding, the U.S. Trustee sought to deny the Debtor’s discharge under § 727(a)(2)(A), § 727(a)(2)(B), and/or § 727(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. Holdings: In the Fraudulent Transfer Adversary Proceeding, the Court held that the transfer of the Debtor’s real properties were avoidable under § 548(a)(1)(A) (actual fraudulent transfer), § 548(a)(1)(B) (constructive fraudulent transfer), and TUFTA. The Court also held that the real properties were recoverable from the Debtor’s ex-spouse under § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court dealt with several issues, including the date a transfer is made under fraudulent conveyance laws, “good faith” for “value” defenses, and the impact of an uncontested divorce decree. In the Discharge Adversary Proceeding, the Court held that the Debtor’s discharge should be denied based on false oaths under § 727(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court found that the Debtor omitted assets from his Bankruptcy Schedules, made false statements in his Statement of Financial Affairs, and provided false testimony at the creditors meeting. The Court’s ruling is set forth in a Consolidated Opinion.
Satija v. Robert (October 31, 2017)
Issues: The Chapter 7 Trustee sought to deny the Debtors their bankruptcy discharge under § 727(a)(3), § 727(a)(5), and/or § 727(a)(4)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Holding: The Court held that the discharge of the Debtors should be denied based on their false oaths under § 727(a)(4)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court found that the Debtors omitted several assets from their initial and Amended Bankruptcy Schedules, and made multiple false statements in their initial and Amended Statement of Financial Affairs. Even though the Debtors ultimately filed Second Amended Schedules and Statements that disclosed and corrected most of the false statements, the Second Amendments were filed by the Debtor many months later and only after the Trustee had to file an adversary proceeding challenging the Debtor’s false statements. The Court also found that the multiple number and the type of false statements made by the Debtors demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth, sufficient to prove fraudulent intent.
Smart-Fill Management Group, Inc. v. Froiland (July 6, 2018)
Issue: Creditor and Debtor agreed to a fixed-date deadline by which any objections to discharge under section 727 and dischargeability of debt under section 523 were required to be filed. The fixed-date deadline was then approved and established by an agreed order entered by the Court. The fixed-date deadline fell on a legal holiday—Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. Creditor filed its Complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability one day after the fixed-date deadline, and Debtor moved to dismiss the Complaint as time-barred. The Court addressed whether Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) automatically extended the filing deadline by one day, since the deadline fell on a legal holiday. Holding: The Court held that Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) does not extend a deadline for filing pleadings when the date is a legal holiday, if a fixed-date deadline has been set by order of a court. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) was amended in 2009 to clarify that an automatic extension of time is allowed only when the filing deadline must be computed in days (such as “no later than 60 days after”). However, when a fixed-date deadline is set for filing pleadings (such as “until January 15, 2018”), no automatic extension of time is allowed under amended Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a). Here, since the filing deadline was a fixed date set by Court order, Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) did not extend the deadline, even though the deadline fell on a legal holiday. As a result, the Court dismissed the Complaint filed by the Creditor as time-barred.