Opinion ID: 372544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Some Loose Ends

Text: 39 Our finding that Angelle was not a fiduciary does not mean that Angelle necessarily gets the complete fresh start he seeks. As we previously indicated, at least some of the five parties seeking to prevent discharge relied not only on § 17a(4), but on § 17a(2) and (8). Judge Andrus, who wrote one opinion for all three cases before him, simply assumed that each of the three parties challenging discharge raised all three theories. On the other hand, Judge Smallenberger did not specifically mention in either of his two opinions which of the three theories the parties raised (or on what theory he based his decision). 40 The District Court obviously believed that all five parties challenging discharge relied on § 17a(4). However, because the opinion did not reach the § 17a(2) and (8) issues, we cannot tell whether, in the view of the District Court, all or any of the parties raised these two theories, let alone whether the facts would justify nondischargeability under either one. 41 Accordingly, we must remand the case to the District Court, which may further remand to the Bankruptcy Court if it deems appropriate. The District Court or, on further remand, the Bankruptcy Court, should determine: (1) which parties raised § 17a(2) and § 17a(8) claims, (2) whether the parties who did not raise either or both of these claims should be granted leave to amend their complaints, and (3) whether the facts in the five cases justify non-dischargeability under § 17a(2) or § 17a(8) or both. 42 REVERSED and REMANDED.