In re Vasquez, Bankruptcy No. 81-01876-N.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 81-01876-N. |
| Citation | 21 BR 211 |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | In re Jose (NMN) VASQUEZ aka Joe (NMN) Vasquez, Debtor. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. Jose VASQUEZ, Defendant. |
Richard S. Harman, Norfolk, Va., for debtor.
John S. Norris, Jr., Williams, Worrell, Kelly & Greer, P.C., Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff.
On December 18, 1981, the debtor filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On January 7, 1982, notice was sent from the Court to all creditors listed by the debtor advising them, among other things, that March 22, 1982, was the last day for filing complaints to determine dischargeability of debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523.
The debtor amended his schedules on March 3, 1982, to add Virginia Electric and Power Company, Inc., VEPCO, as a creditor in the amount of $2,178.00. The accompanying cover letter from the debtor's attorney to the Court indicates that a copy of the letter and the amended portions of the debtor's schedules were also sent to VEPCO on March 3rd. VEPCO acknowledges receipt of this information, but has no record of what date the correspondence was received.
On March 18th notice was sent from the Court to VEPCO advising that it had been added as a creditor on the debtor's schedules. A copy of the Court's notice of January 7 was attached. This notice was received by VEPCO on March 19th. VEPCO filed an application for an extension of time to file a complaint to determine dischargeability, alleging in the application that VEPCO's first notice of the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was dated March 18th. This is opposed by the debtor who argues the time for doing this has expired and that VEPCO had ample time to timely challenge the discharge.
In summary, the time frame appears thusly:
December 18 Case filed
March 3 VEPCO added as a creditor
March 3 Notice from debtor's attorney
to Vepco of pending
bankruptcy
March 18 Notice of added creditor sent by
Court
March 19 Such notice received by creditor
March 22 Last day originally established
by Court for challenging
dischargeability
VEPCO laments its situation as a volume creditor and seeks special treatment. These tears fall upon a hard heart on the subject. The law provides for no preferential consideration and VEPCO must be atuned to the effects of a customer filing bankruptcy. The fact that it, as a natural monopoly, has many customers places it in a situation with many other high potential customer bankruptcy entities who handle the situation well. To be sure, it involves but two steps:
Indeed, one of the best "investments" a large business can make is to bring in a knowledgeable attorney to teach employees at a training session. In addition to an awareness of deadlines, which are usually fatal, this includes information on such matters as claims. We recently had a case where $7,668.01 was returned to the debtor and this in spite of several notices to creditors of assets and a surplus. In re Acklin, 80-02451-NN.
When a case is filed, the Court fixes a time for the filing of complaints for the dischargeability of debts. If it is a no-asset case, as this is, only 10 days' notice of the date fixed is required. Rule 409(a)(2). Following the effectiveness of this procedure in 1973, a few creditors would come before the Court demanding the right to challenge the discharge after the time had expired. The courts determined that the Congress intended that the deadline be followed absent "excusable neglect."
As might be anticipated, an appeal of this Court's application of the mandates of time was taken early on. The District Court agreed that a creditor must act within the time set or seek an extension before the expiration of it. In re Eates, 201-73-N (Kellam, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial