Court Opinion

ID: 9699976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:01:50.663278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:01.807278
License: Public Domain

VOTOLATO, Bankruptcy Judge,
Dissenting.
I write separately to voice disagreement with the Majority decision to reverse.
I do not take issue with the Majority’s general discussion of the various decisions in this Circuit addressing the issues of when, and under what circumstances is the § 341 meeting closed, i.e., when does the clock begin to run vis-a-vis Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992). However, I believe the answers to these questions are generally fact based, and that is where I respectfully part company with the Majority’s de novo review of, and its ruling that *266this is not a “special circumstances” case. I understand the Majority’s evaluation of the trustee’s conduct to be that she acted, at best negligently, and possibly unprofessionally, in the performance of her duties. That harsh determination,18 I think, is unsupported by the record,19 and forms a problematic basis for the conclusion that the bankruptcy judge made an error of law when he sustained the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ claim of exemption. As I see it, in these circumstances, where there is at least a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must be able to find that the trial judge either abused its discretion, or that the reviewing court was left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Cabral v. Shamban (In re Cabral), 285 B.R. 563, 571 (1st Cir. BAP 2002). In my opinion the bankruptcy judge did neither, and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Based on the foregoing, I suppose that by implication it is fair to say that I favor the case-by-case approach to determine when the § 341 meeting is closed. See Petit v. Fessenden, 182 B.R. 59 (D.Me.1995), aff'd on other grounds, 80 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.1996).
For the reasons discussed above, I would affirm the bankruptcy court’s order.

. While my position in this dissent should not be construed as endorsement of her conduct, I simply do not feel that to grade the trustee’s performance is our call to make, on appeal, as a matter of law.

. Especially where the U.S. Trustee was actively investigating for five months a possible § 727 objection to discharge, which was eventually abandoned.