In Re H. Frank Dominguez, Debtor. H. Frank Dominguez v. David D. Miller Denyse M. Miller

Good Law
51 F.3d 1502·95 Daily Journal DAR 4879·1995 WL 225484·27 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 116·33 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 568
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 18, 199593-56020California4,104 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Debtor/Appellant Frank H. Dominguez appeals a bankruptcy appellate panel’s reversal of a bankruptcy court’s dismissal, for failure to meet the limitation requirement of Fed. R.Bankr.P. 4004(a), of Creditors/Appellees David and Denyse Millers’ complaint objecting to discharge of Dominguez’ debt. We affirm the bankruptcy appellate panel’s decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Dominguez filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on January 22, 1988. The Millers, who held claims in excess of $5 million against the estate, were active in the bankruptcy proceedings from the beginning. The court initially confirmed a non-liquidating Debtor’s Plan and disclosure statement on February 7, 1990; but the trustee filed a liquidating Trustee’s Plan, before the Debt- or’s Plan had become effective, that proposed to discharge all debts not explicitly excepted under the plan.

On September 10, 1991, two days prior to the scheduled confirmation hearing on the Trustee’s Plan, the Millers filed a “Memorandum Re: Relationship between Order Confirming Trustee’s Plan and Debtor’s Discharge” (the “Discharge Memorandum”), in which they contended that section 1141(d)(3) prohibited the confirmation of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.