In the Matter of Henri J. Bianucci and Barbara J. Bianucci, Debtors-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that delay in addition to other factors counseled against reopening a case to address a lien that debtor failed to avoid that was not discharged
• stating that “[w]hile it may be permissible for a bankruptcy court to condition reopening on reimbursement, we do not believe the court must do so.”
• noting that foreclosure of the lien had already been litigated in state court through the appellate level
• declining to reopen a case to avoid a lien when the debtor had actual knowledge that the lien was still valid for at least five months after the bankruptcy was closed, yet waited until the creditor attempted to revive the lien to move to reopen
• the longer the period between closing and reopening, the more cause must be shown to warrant a reopening
• court refused to reopen case when case had been closed for two years and creditor had incurred expenses to revive its judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).