disclaimer stampThis website is not intended to be a legal advice resource. It is only meant to be used for educational reasons. Please don’t take any action or refrain from taking any action based on what you’ve read on this website. This website, article, or link may contain outdated, incorrect, or irrelevant information. It is your obligation to speak with an expert attorney who can apply current legislation or laws to your personal situation in a professional manner.

There is no attorney-client relationship formed by using this site or communicating with Law Office of D.L. Drain or any of our employees. Please read the complete disclaimer for additional information.

It is vital that you seek legal advice from a qualified attorney on your individual situation. It will almost certainly cost you less to seek advice before acting than it will to repair your mistakes.

REOPENING BANKRUPTCY CASE

IMPORTANT: THIS FIRM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OR CURRENT STATUS OF ANY LAW, CASE, ARTICLE OR PUBLICATION CITED HEREIN OR LINKED TO.  WARNING – SOME OF THESE REFERENCES ARE PRE-BAPCPA.

This Motion is filed on an Ex Parte basis in that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Defendant”) never filed a response to the Summons and Complaint or an appearance in the adversary matter. The request for relief herein is ministerial in nature Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 948 (9th Cir.2001) (“The mere reopening of a bankruptcy case is a ministerial act that ‘lacks independent legal significance and determines nothing with respect to the merits of the case.”) (citation omitted). Cause exists to file this motion on an ex parte basis and to grant the relief requested by the Plaintiffs herein. The Debtors’ motion is as follows:

Also, check out section 350 of the Code.

11 USC 350. “A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.”

You should be able to reopen the case for the sole purpose, if necessary, to deal with the lien. For example, reopening does not mean a stay is put back in place when reopened for a limited purpose.  In re Gruetzmacher, 145 B.R. 270, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 2126 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1991). There also appears to be a descent amount of case law supporting laches under some scenarios.  Therefore a good argument exists for reopening to deal solely with the lien and that does not reopen the case for others, such as the trustee or creditors. If the trustee tries to initiate a new process, after the case was closed, laches can be argued.