Opinion ID: 3170685
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contested Motion versus Adversary Proceeding

Text: Krueger contends that the grounds on which this case was dismissed must be asserted in an adversary proceeding objecting to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001, proceedings classified as adversary proceedings must be litigated as lawsuits under rules that essentially track the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Objecting to a discharge under § 727, with narrow exceptions not applicable here, must be conducted as an adversary proceeding. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(4). In all matters not listed in Rule 7001, relief can be had through motion after notice and a hearing. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. Dismissal under § 707(a) is not listed in Rule 7001. Krueger’s argument fails for the simple reason that this proceeding was adjudicated as a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case. The remedy imposed by the court was a dismissal with a temporary filing bar, not the denial of discharge or dischargeability. The bankruptcy rules permitted this matter to be pursued as a contested motion, and the bankruptcy court conducted the proceeding appropriately. In any event, any error by the bankruptcy court in hearing this matter as a contested motion was harmless. See Fed. R. Bank. P. 9005 (incorporating harmless error rule); Barner v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In re Barner), 597 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[Debtor’s] substantial rights were unaffected by [creditor] seeking relief by motion rather than by adversary proceeding. The parties had a full hearing on the merits before the bankruptcy court and the ability to litigate all questions of law there and before the district court. If there was error in proceeding by motion, it was harmless.”) (citation omitted). 6 Case: 14-11355 Document: 00513346937 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 No. 14-11355