In re Schones, Bankruptcy No. Bk-84-0091-A.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1984
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. Bk-84-0091-A.
• Citation: 42 BR 552
• Parties: In re Bill G. SCHONES, Debtor.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Oklahoma

42 B.R. 552 (1984)

In re Bill G. SCHONES, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. Bk-84-0091-A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

September 28, 1984.

James M. Chaney and Thomas P. Goresen, Kirk & Chaney, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Southwestern Drilling Co. and Southwestern Drilling Management Co.

Mark E. Bialick of Durgin, Larimore & Bialick, Oklahoma City, Okl., for debtor.

Lee Ann Wilson, Oklahoma City, Okl., pro se trustee.

Daniel Power of Eagleton, Nicholson, Jones, Blaney & Pringle, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Commerce Bank.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

RICHARD L. BOHANON, Bankruptcy Judge.

Two creditors in this case, Southwestern Drilling Company and Southwestern Drilling Management Company, have moved to postpone the debtor's discharge for consideration of whether they moved timely to complain concerning dischargeability of their debt.

Rule 4007(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure allows that a complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) must be filed not later than 60 days following the first date set for the meeting of creditors. It continues to say that the Court may extend the time for cause but "the motion shall be made before the time has expired."

After expiration of the 60 days the creditors moved to extend the time to file their complaint. That motion was denied as untimely.

The creditors now contend that a motion for relief from the automatic stay which they made within the 60 days acted to extend their time for a dischargeability complaint. The stay relief motion was granted to allow the creditors to proceed in state court against the debtor for purposes of liquidating their claim. They now contend that In re Olmstead, 608 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir.1979) means that their time for bringing a complaint was extended ipso facto by the stay relief motion. We do not read Olmstead to reach this result for it was a case under the prior Bankruptcy Rules which did not contain the mandatory language that the time can only be extended if the motion is made before the expiration date. Olmstead says merely that a bankruptcy court may modify the stay and direct that claims be liquidated in another forum, with the issue of dischargeability to be decided subsequently. These creditors could have achieved that result had they made a motion before the 60 days expired.

We have said previously that though Bankruptcy Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c) may be harsh, they are plain. See State Guaranty Bank of Okeene v. Ensminger, Adv. 84-294, 42 B.R. 548 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1984) and State Guaranty Bank of Okeene v. Ensminger, Adv. 84-295, 42 B.R. 548 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1984). This result is enforced by the...