Opinion ID: 2977366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Complaint

Text: Although the Debtor argues in this appeal that summary judgment should not have been granted in Conley’s favor because the adversary complaint was not timely filed, he does not indicate how the filing was untimely. Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c), a complaint to determine the dischargeability of this type of debt must be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors. In this case, the clerk of court set the first date for the meeting of creditors on December 11, 2006, and the last day to file complaints objecting to the dischargeability of debts on February 9, 2007. Conley timely filed his complaint on February 9, 2007. It is irrelevant that the Debtor’s bankruptcy case was originally filed as a chapter 13 and that a meeting of creditors was held under that chapter. Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1019(2), a new time period for filing complaints to determine dischargeability under Rule 4007(c) commenced after the conversion of the case from chapter 13 to chapter 7. See Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. v. Marino (In re Marino), 181 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1999) (when case is converted to chapter 7 proceeding, new time limitation comes into being). The bankruptcy court assumed, based on the Debtor’s argument in his motion to dismiss the complaint, that the Debtor contested the complaint’s timeliness because he apparently received his discharge order before service of process in the nondischargeability complaint. The court noted that, if that were the basis, the Debtor failed to read the reverse side of the discharge order that expressly indicates that the discharge is subject to any debts the bankruptcy court specifically determines are nondischargeable. It is well settled that “[t]he timely filing of a complaint under § 523(a)(2), (4), (6) or (15) does not prevent the entry of a discharge. The court can grant the discharge and subsequently declare that a particular debt was not discharged under one of those provisions.” Smith v. Bandy (In re Bandy), 237 B.R. 661, 663 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1999). -6-