Ohio Bankruptcy Resources - Credit Cards
The sites below were reviewed for content which is relevant to the Ohio bankruptcy issues appearing within
this site. For more information regarding our
selection of resources, see our review policy. If you have further
questions, do not hesitate to email us at admin@ohio-bankruptcy-laws.com.
We welcome all sites submitted for review and respond to all requests within 3 business days.
Credit Card Information:
- Credit Cards - refresh.
Recent Notable Opinions of the Supreme Court of The United States:
Kontrick v. Ryan, No. 02-819 (2004), Argued November 3, 2003, Decided January 14, 2004, CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. A creditor in Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings has "60 days after the first date set for the meeting of
creditors" to file a complaint objecting to the debtor's discharge. Fed. Rule Bankruptcy Proc. 4004(a). The bankruptcy
court may extend that period "for cause" on motion "filed before the time has expired." Fed. Rule
Bankruptcy Proc. 4004(b). Reinforcing Rule 4004(b)'s restriction on extension of the Rule 4004(a) deadline, Rule 9006(b)(3) allows
enlargement of "the time for taking action" under Rule 4004(a) "only to the extent and under the conditions stated
in that rule," i.e., only as permitted by Rule 4004(b). Held: a debtor forfeits the right to rely on Rule 4004 if the debtor does not raise the Rule's time
limitation before the court considers a creditor's objection to discharge. Only Congress
may determine a lower federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 1. The Code
establishes objections to discharges as core proceedings within the courts' jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(J). Congress did not
include time constraints within the Code. As Bankruptcy Rule 9030 states, the
Bankruptcy Rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts. The filing deadlines
prescribed in Rules 4004 and 9006(b)(3) are claim-processing rules that do not determine subject matter
jurisdiction.
Recent Notable Opinions from Ohio Bankruptcy Courts
Brown v. Brooks, Case No. 97-16744 Chapter 7, Adversary No. 01-1389, decided January 3, 2003 by the Ohio
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District. Ex-husband Brown filed an adversary proceeding in connection with a
Chapter 7 case filed by Brooks, his former wife. In Chapter 7, Brooks requested discharge of her debts created
by the decree of dissolution of marriage (and agreed separation agreement within). In particular, Brown sought a
determination of non-dischargeable status while Brooks responded with a motion for summary judgment discharging
the adversary proceeding. The Ohio Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District held: The Creditor has the burden
of proof to show a debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a). Once the Creditor establishes the debt may
be covered by this section, the burden of proof shifts to the debtor, who must show, by clear and convincing
evidence, any applicable exception which may allow discharge. Hart v. Molino (In re Molino) 225 B.R. 904, 907
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1198). In this particular case, because The Husband/Creditor provided proof (A) the debt arose
from a dissolution decree, and (B) all rights to spousal support where waived. Because of custom drafting of
agreements included within the agreed separation agreement, the Ohio Bankruptcy Court found a genuine issue of
fact and required strict proof of all applicable exceptions.
|
