In re: BRENT EVAN WEBSTER
- Summarized by David Treacy , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
- 3 months 1 week ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- BAP No. OR-23-1005-LBG (9th Circuit, Aug 16,2023) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's order denying a debtor's motion to reopen his chapter 13 bankruptcy case because (1) a dismissed bankruptcy case cannot be reopened, (2) the debtor provided no basis (in the bankruptcy case or on appeal) to find that reopening the case would accord relief to the debtor or that other cause to reopen existed, and (3) even if the case could have been reopened, the debtor's request for this relief was not made within a reasonable period of time.
- Procedural context:
- The BAP evaluated the bankruptcy court's order denying Debtor's motion to reopen his dismissed chapter 13 bankruptcy case for an abuse of discretion.
- Facts:
- Debtor Brent Evan Webster filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November 2019 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon. The bankruptcy court granted Debtor's motion to convert the case to a chapter 13 the next month. After several months of activity, the bankruptcy court dismissed Debtor's case in July 2000, finding that he wasn't able to fund a plan and had proposed his final (third amended) plan in bad faith. Debtor moved to reopen his case in December 2022; as the BAP explained, "[t]he motion largely repeated Webster’s prior arguments and asserted 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise of excusable neglect' with no facts or evidence supporting those allegations." The bankruptcy court denied Debtor's motion without a hearing. The court noted in its order that the case could not be reopened under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) as a matter of law as it had been dismissed and not "closed." The order also evaluated Debtor's motion under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024/Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) "and ruled that the request was not made within a reasonable amount of time nor did Webster offer any reason why the court should reconsider its prior ruling that the plan was proposed in bad faith and was not feasible." Debtor appealed from this order.
- Judge(s):
- LAFFERTY, BRAND, and GAN
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
