In re Johnson
| Decision Date | 30 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 16482.,16482. |
| Citation | 291 F.2d 910 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Ray Carlton JOHNSON, Bankrupt. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Nona R. Johnson, pro se.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.
The Estate of Ray C. Johnson, bankrupt, was closed in 1958, and the trustee was discharged at that time. Two years later, the bankrupt's wife, Nona R. Johnson, petitioned the bankruptcy court to reopen the estate alleging that she was a creditor and that there were unadministered assets. The court denied her petition, and she has appealed. Both in the trial court and here, the matter has been handled by her pro se.
The Bankruptcy Act authorizes reopening of a closed estate "for cause shown". 11 U.S.C.A. § 11(8). A petition to reopen is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Hunter v. Commerce Trust Co., 8 Cir., 55 F.2d 1, 4. For denial of a petition on alleged additional assets to constitute an abuse, assets of such probability, administrability and substance must appear to exist as to make it unreasonable under all the circumstances for the court not to deal with them. Cf. In re Newton, 8 Cir., 107 F. 429, 431.
The situation here cannot be declared to be of that character. What appellant sought reopening on were some purported choses in action, which she had for some time been futilely wrestling with herself. She wanted to get the trustee to take over the burden of attempting to obtain redress on these and thereby relieve her of further task and expense in her personal determination to have them pursued.
Two of the matters had in effect been rejected and abandoned by the trustee, while the estate was open, as being without basis or value. One of these was a claim for tax refund, based on a joint return of the Johnsons, as to which they had themselves brought suit in the District Court, had been denied recovery, and had at the time of the application herein taken an appeal to this Court. (We have since made affirmance of the judgment of the District Court, Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 291 F.2d 908.)
The other was an alleged claim related to matters which had been involved in and appeared to be legally concluded by litigation, to which the bankrupt had been a party, and which had been closed on the records of the state court five years before the bankruptcy. As to this the court appropriately observed that "to reopen the bankrupt's case for the purpose of recovery by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Coralia Arana And Fidel E. Arana
...appear to exist as to make it unreasonable under all the circumstances for the court not to deal with them’ ”) (quoting In re Johnson, 291 F.2d 910, 911 (8th Cir.1961)). As noted by a leading commentator: Some courts have looked to whether the debtor's nondisclosure was intentional.... Howe......
-
Brenelli Amedeo, S.P.A. v. Bakara Furniture, Inc.
...bankruptcy court to reopen the case in order to administer the omitted potential asset. (Title 11 U.S.C. § 350, subd. (b); In re Johnson (8th Cir.1961) 291 F.2d 910 [petition should show probability, administrability and substance of alleged additional assets].) In making the decision wheth......
-
In re Riazuddin
...308 (10th Cir.1984). 30. In re Alpex, 71 F.3d at 356. 31. In re Herzig, 96 B.R. 264, 266 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) (citing In re Johnson, 291 F.2d 910, 911 (8th Cir.1961)); In re Lopez, 283 B.R. 22, 29 (9th Cir. BAP 2002) (Even assuming debtor had intentionally concealed asset by omitting it from......
-
In re Van Winkle
...(4th Cir. 1984); In re Haker, 411 F.2d 568, 569 (5th Cir. 1969); Bartle v. Markson, 357 F.2d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 1966); In re Johnson, 291 F.2d 910, 911 (8th Cir. 1961); In re McDonald, 161 B.R. 697, 698 (D. Kan. 1993); In re Smith, 125 B.R. 630, 631 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1991). Motions to reope......