Court Opinion

ID: 9701771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:37:25.037677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:25.441105
License: Public Domain

SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge
dissenting.
Because the Order of October 11, 2000, is unambiguous and was served upon Landmark, I respectfully dissent.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004(a) states unequivocally that in a Chapter 7 liquidation case a complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge under section 727(a) of the Code shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under section 341(a). Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b) provides that on motion from any party in interest, after hearing and notice, the court may for cause extend the time to file a complaint objecting to discharge. This rule requires a motion to be filed before the original 60 days has expired. In Taylor v. Freeland and Kronz, the Supreme Court made clear that deadlines in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure mean what they say and that violations of such deadlines cannot be ignored or excused. See Taylor v. Freeland and Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 644, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 1648, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992)(“Deadlines may lead to unwelcome results, but they prompt parties to act and they produce finality.”).
As the majority concedes, there is no question that the simple foregoing procedure was not followed in this case and the Section 727 bar date was not extended. Minnesota Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004-3 simply allows the court to defer entry of discharge in certain circumstances. There is no hint therein that time for filing objection to discharge is extended relative to the deferral. Landmark’s counsel concedes that the bankruptcy court’s Order Deferring Discharge did not operate to extend the Section 727 bar date and did not extend the filing deadline. Although Landmark contends in its brief that it relied upon the Order Deferring Discharge, nowhere does it allege that the order is ambiguous. This is not a case where the “aggrieved” party was not served with the order. Here, Landmark timely had in its possession an unambiguous order from the court. Instead, Landmark’s rationale is to seek interpretation of an unambiguous court order from the trustee and a deputy clerk of the court. The Order did what it says on its face and nothing more.
Although the source document (Order Deferring Discharge dated October 11, 2000) was clear and unambiguous, Landmark sought the advice of the Chapter 7 trustee. The trustee advised Landmark that the automatic deferral of entry of discharge procedure under Local Rule 4004-3 extended the time in which complaints to deny discharge may be filed, an interpretation held by many trustees and bankruptcy practitioners according to the trustee. If so, this interpretation and application would be in spite of and in conflict with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(3), which allows a bankruptcy court to enlarge the time for taking action under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(a) “only to the extent and under the conditions stated in [the] rule.” Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(b)(3). To extend the time to file a complaint denying discharge requires a motion of any party in interest before the original time bar expires. No such motion was ever filed; hence, the time bar date was never extended. For the trustee to assert and have advised Landmark’s counsel that he had also received an enlargement of the time within which to object to discharge (which he never asked for) is unreasonable, and it is unreasonable to rely on such advice in the face of a clear and explicit Order of Octo*616ber 11, 2000, and applicable Rules. Congress could not have intended that clear, unambiguous, statutory provisions and court orders be thwarted by errant interpretations and practices of trustees and practitioners, nor should this court allow or encourage them to be likewise thwarted.
Next, Landmark contends that it relied upon the court’s website.4 The page in question listed two dates under the description “Objections to Discharge,” one corresponding to the appropriate date pursuant to the applicable rule, and one that was entered in error. Clearly this would cause confusion and lead a reasonable practitioner to review the source document (the court’s Order of October 11, 2000) underlying the unofficial listing on the website. A thorough and cautious practitioner might also look to an official secondary source such as the actual court docket or minute entry to eliminate the confusion. Landmark did neither, instead relying on a third source, a computer compilation of dates, motions, and descriptions. The fact that this reliance worked to their advantage in the end is more than fortuitous.
Landmark also cites reliance on discussions with the United States Bankruptcy Court Clerk during which that clerk identified the latter date as the deadline for filing the Plaintiffs Complaint Objecting to Discharge. It is safe to assume that upon the request by Landmark to identify the time bar date, the clerk simply reviewed the same web page that Landmark had previously reviewed, and seeing the second entry for “Objections to Discharge”, responded accordingly. There is nothing in the record to indicate the clerk went to the source document or secondary source documents to verify this assumption. Barring that, reliance upon discussions with the clerk who based his opinion upon the same misinformed web page suffers from the same maladies as those afflicting the web page, discussed above.
Finally, the majority relies almost entirely on Isaacman for support to invoke equitable powers. However, in Isaacman (and the cases cited therein), the court actually set a second bar date. In the case before us no such second bar date was ever established by the court. The trustee never asked for a second bar date, hence one was never granted by the court. If one was created by the inadvertence of a deputy clerk (see attachment) and the misunderstanding of the trustee, such inadvertence and misunderstanding do not equate to the formal establishment of a second bar date by the court.
The incentive we create today should be one that encourages practitioners to look at source documents, the Rules, the Code, and official docket entries rather than an incentive that encourages short-circuiting this process in favor of reliance on interpretations and practices of court officials or employees wrought with the possibility of human error. To allow Landmark to prosecute a complaint, filed approximately six weeks after the deadline, because of a mistaken and unreasonable interpretation of the trustee, a mistake on the bankruptcy court web page, or an opinion of the deputy clerk based upon that web page, will encourage future quests for ambiguity where none exists. The majority would have a deputy clerk’s entry on a web page or an unreasonable misinterpretation have the force of law, superceding the clear Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure promulgated by Congress. I do not think this should be the case.5 Accordingly, I *617would affirm the Order of the bankruptcy court.

. Attached to this opinion is a copy of the web page which Landmark relies upon.

. The majority appears concerned about the precedent of parties relying upon court web *617pages ("the parties to the bankruptcy case must be able to have confidence in the electronic case filing system”). Minnesota does not use an electronic case filing system. Rather, the attached web page is a compilation derived by a deputy clerk from either the court Order of October 11, 2000, or docket entries created by the deputy clerk. The confidence which the majority refers should stem from a review of the court Order itself. Electronic case filing systems avoid the situation created in this case by allowing readers to view source documents (court orders) in PDF format.