State Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Dunlap (In Re Dunlap)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “first date 'set” for creditors meeting does not mean the date set in the first notice if circumstances (like dismissal or an order of abatement) prevent creditor from filing timely complaint objecting to discharge
• explaining the \strict time limitation\ placed on creditors to file an objection to discharge demonstrates the Bankruptcy Code's overall goal of providing a debtor with a \fresh start\
• rejecting an equitable tolling remedy because “there is no provision for a tolling regime found in the relevant portions of the Bankruptcy Code or Rules” and tolling “fails to comport with the purpose of Rule 4007(c
• \The strict time limitation placed upon creditors who wish to object to a debt's dischargeability reflects the Bankruptcy Code's goal of providing debtors with a fresh start.\
• “[T]his fixed, relatively short limitation period enables the debtor and creditors to make better-informed decisions early in the . . . proceedings.” (quoting Neeley v. Murchison, 815 F.2d 345, 346-47 (5th Cir. 1987))
• “there is no provision for a tolling regime found in the relevant portions of the Bankruptcy Code or Rules,” and that “a tolling rule fails to comport with the purpose of [Bankruptcy] Rule 4007(c) . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).