Beezley v. California Land Title Co. (In re Beezley)
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026In re: Edward Gilliam
- 2026Jean Richardson Bankr. D. Haw.
- 2025In re: Cameron Richard De Smidt 9th Cir. BAP
- 2024Palasi v. Transunion, LLC S.D. Cal.
- 2024In re: Crystal Dawn McDowell 9th Cir. BAP
- 2024Rashad Lovett, Sr. and Kaceria Lovett Bankr. E.D. Mo.
- 2023Prizler v. Cain Bankr. D.N.M.
- 2023Maria Isabel Uzcanga-Ramirez Bankr. D. Or.
- 2023In re: Edwin D. Licup and Christine Tracy Castro 9th Cir. BAP
- 2022In re: RUBEN RUIZ and KENYA RUIZ 9th Cir. BAP
Cites 4 statutes
- Closing and reopening cases
- Exceptions to discharge
- Discharge
- Appeals
Cites 8 cases
- In re Hunter
- In re Thibodeau
- Peacock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (In re Peacock)
- American Credit Services, Inc. v. Tucker (In re Tucker)
- In re Stecklow
- American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Bakehorn
- Kozman v. Herzig (In re Herzig)
- In re Mendiola
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In re Gilbert G. BEEZLEY, Debtor. Gilbert G. BEEZLEY, Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges
- Before O’SCANNLAIN and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, District Judge.
Attorneys
- Gilbert G. Beezley, pro se.
- Mark E. Rohatiner, Ellen L. Frank, Schneider, Goldberg, Rohatiner & Yuen, Beverly Hills, CA, for appellee. •
Debtor Gilbert G. Beezley appeals the decision of the Ninth Circuit BAP, affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to reopen his bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.
Beezley argues that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion to reopen his case. See In re Herzig, 96 B.R. 264, 266 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) (bankruptcy court’s refusal to reopen a closed case under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) reviewed for an abuse of discretion). We disagree. Based on the assumption that amendment was necessary to discharge the debt, Beezley sought to add an omitted debt to his schedules. Beezley’s, however, was a no asset, no bar date Chapter 7 case. After such a case has been closed, dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling; amendment of Beezley’s schedules would thus have been a pointless exercise. See American Standard Ins. Co. v. Bakehorn, 147 B.R. 480, 483 (N.D.Ind.1992); In re Stecklow, 144 B.R. 314, 317 (Bankr.D.Md.1992); In re Tucker, 143 B.R. 330, 334 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1992); In re Peacock, 139 B.R. 421, 422 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1992); In re Thibodeau, 136 B.R. 7, 10 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992); In re Hunter, 116 B.R. 3, 5 (Bankr.D.D.C.1990); In re Mendiola, 99 B.R. 864, 865 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1989). If the omitted debt is of a type covered by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), it has already been discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727. If the debt is of a type covered by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B), it has not been discharged, and is non-dischargeable. In sum, reopening here in order to grant Beezley’s request would not have “accord[ed] relief to” Beez-ley; thus, there was no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
. We express no opinion as to whether the omitted debt was or was not discharged.