In re Zaidins
| Decision Date | 14 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 55-B-570.,55-B-570. |
| Citation | 182 F. Supp. 543 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Sidney Mendel ZAIDINS, Bankrupt. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Charles Geisenfeld, Milwaukee, Wis., for bankrupt.
Margadette M. Demet, Milwaukee, Wis., for trustee.
This is a petition for review of an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy denying a discharge to the petitioner, Sidney Mendel Zaidins.
Petitioner filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on June 29, 1955. At the adjourned First Meeting of Creditors held on August 9, 1955, petitioner invoked the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer questions concerning the representations he made to certain creditors as to the intended use of money he obtained from them. The Referee did not compel the petitioner to answer but found the questions material and approved them.
On September 16, 1956, the Trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding filed Specifications of Objections to Discharge, including one relating to petitioner's failure to answer questions which reads as follows:
The Trustee did not appear at a pretrial conference on December 5, 1957, or at the hearing on the Objections to Discharge on December 27, 1957, although due notice was given for both events. At the hearing on the Objections, the Referee granted petitioner's motion for dismissal of the Objections with leave, however, to the Trustee to amend.
On July 31, 1958, the Trustee filed Specifications of Amended Objections. In respect to the allegations of Objection No. 2 relating to petitioner's refusal to answer questions, the Trustee furnished additional details such as the names of the persons in regard to whom the questions were asked and the year with which the questions were concerned.
Petitioner's motion to dismiss the Specifications of Amended Objections filed on September 11, 1958, was denied by the Referee on November 4, 1958. On the hearing held on December 12, 1958, the Referee dismissed all Objections except that based on the failure to answer questions. On June 3, 1959, the Referee filed an Opinion and Order denying petitioner's discharge in bankruptcy on the ground of petitioner's failure to answer material questions approved by the bankruptcy court within the meaning of Section 14, sub. c(6) of the Bankruptcy Act.
Section 14, sub. c(6) of the Act, Title 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(6), insofar as pertinent, provides as follows:
It is the position of the petitioner that the Specifications of Objections originally filed by the Trustee were not amendable; that the Trustee was guilty of laches in filing the Amended Objections seven months after dismissal of the original Objections; that the questions which petitioner refused to answer were not approved by the Referee as to substance as well as form; and that these questions were not material to the proceeding.
The Specification of Objection in issue filed by the Trustee in September, 1956, goes beyond a mere recital of the words of the statute. The amendment thereto furnishes particulars of the earlier general statement of fact and does not introduce new material. The question whether amendments to objections to discharge should be permitted rests in the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court. Burchett v. Myers, 9 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 920. Where the amendment does not present a new ground of objection but cures a prior defective statement and causes no surprise to the bankrupt, it may be allowed. See In re Taub, 2 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 81.
Petitioner has offered no proof of prejudice resulting to him from the seven month delay in filing the Amended Objections. It may also be noted that petitioner did not object to the original Specifications which had been filed in September, 1956, until December, 1957. He has failed to support the allegation as to the Trustee's laches with the necessary showing of injury. See In re Stilwell, 2 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 194.
No more formal approval of questions is required from the Referee than the overruling of Objections if any are made and the allowance of the question. In re Weinreb, 2 Cir., 1907, 153 F....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Solari Furs
...necessary to support our holding, see In re Schmerel, D.C.N.J., 120 F.Supp. 899, 900; In re Taub, 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 81, 82; In re Zaidins, D.C.Wis., 182 F.Supp. 543; and Burchett v. Myers, 9 Cir., 202 F.2d Bankrupts also argue that the specifications relating to the financial statement are de......
-
In re Gross
...to make them questions approved by the Court; it is sufficient if the Referee overrules any objections that are made. In re Zaidins, D.C.1960, 182 F.Supp. 543, 545. The Bankrupt in his brief contends that evasive and disingenuous testimony by a bankrupt is not a ground for a refusal of a di......
-
In re Zaidins, 13077.
...constitutional right to so refuse was recognized but his right to a discharge was denied. The district court made and published (In re Zaidins, 182 F.Supp. 543) its decision which we have carefully reviewed. We believe that the opinion is correct and we therefore adopt it as a part While we......