Court Opinion

ID: 2963550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:47.742523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.072696
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 28, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1042

                               IN RE:  DANIEL J. DILL,

                                       Debtor.
                                 ____________________

                     GENERAL ELECTRIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   DANIEL J. DILL,

                                      Appellee.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard W. Gannett on brief for appellant.
            __________________
            Leonard A. Berkal and Berkal, Stelman,  Davern & Shribman on brief
            _________________     ___________________________________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  in
                 __________

            this case, including the briefs of the parties.  We find that

            appellant  has failed to meet  its burden, see  In re Nelson,
                                                       ___  ____________

            100 Bankr. 905, 906  (Bankr. N.D. Oh. 1989), of  showing that

            "assets of such probability, administrability and substance .

            .   .  exist  as  to  make  it  unreasonable  under  all  the

            circumstances for the court  not to deal  with them."  In  re
                                                                   ______

            Herzig,  96  B.R.  264,  266  (Bankr.  9th   Cir.  BAP  1989)
            ______

            (citations  omitted).   We  note  as  well  that  the  record

            discloses  no  justification  for  the  substantial  delay in

            filing the  motion to  reopen.   See Fed.  R. Bankr.  P. 9024
                                             ___

            (motion to reopen  must be made within  reasonable time after

            case is closed); Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue v.
                             _________________________________________

            St.  Croix  Hotel Corp.,  60  B.R.  412, 414  (D.V.I.  1986).
            _______________________

            Therefore,  we find no abuse of discretion in the decision of

            the bankruptcy court not  to reopen this case pursuant  to 11

            U.S.C.   350(b).  

                 Affirmed.
                 ________