DeLesk v. Rhodes (In Re Rhodes)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that deadline for filing a complaint expired even though creditors’ meeting was never actually held during sixty-day time period in which the debtor failed to appear at two scheduled meetings
• finding that debtor has a duty to search the bankruptcy court file after learning of debtor’s bankruptcy
• dismissing a complaint as untimely filed, where counsel received actual notice of the bankruptcy proceedings approximately one month before the dischargeability bar date
• dismissing a complaint as untimely filed, where counsel received actual notice of the bankruptcy proceeding approximately one month from the discharge-ability bar date
• even lack of notice from the court of the bar date does not excuse creditor’s failure to inquire
• if creditor or attorney would have reviewed bankruptcy file upon learning of proceeding, they would have had ample time to timely file complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).