Opinion ID: 2737436
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: under subsection (d)(1) of this section

Text: within one year after such discharge is granted; or 20 the extent that ATN could seek to revoke Allen’s discharge at least before October 11, 2014, the discharge itself does not render ATN’s arguments moot. With respect to Allen’s argument that he has satisfied “both items that were at issue with the Florida Bankruptcy Court,” and that “Judge Burns would not have granted a Discharge had Appellee not performed [the two items referenced above] fully, completely and to her satisfaction,” the New Jersey Federal Courts were never given an opportunity to pass on them. Appellee’s Br. at 4. Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court’s discharge order provides no basis for the court’s decision, and makes no reference to any requirements having been satisfied. See Order Discharging Debtor, Case No. 11-37671, Docket Entry No. 109 at 1 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2013) (providing only that “[i]t appearing that the debtor is entitled to a discharge . . . The debtor is granted a discharge under section 727 of title 11, United States Code.”). Because remand is necessary in this case, Allen may seek to develop a further factual record and make those arguments at that time, but we will not consider his arguments for the first time on this appeal. In light of these considerations, we conclude that the New Jersey Federal Courts erred in interpreting “recover” as requiring actual possession of the funds at issue. By contrast, ATN obtained a § 550 recovery order, thus bringing the funds within its estate in the Florida proceedings. The mere fact