Court Opinion

ID: 9522434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:25:40.196452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:48.417250
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring:
I concur. The order of dismissal, being to the plain legal prejudice of creditors, was an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the trustee had standing to oppose dismissal in the absence of unanimous creditor consent to dismissal. I write separately for three reasons.
First, I would rest the trustee’s standing solely on his role as representative of the unsecured creditors and his statutory, duty to collect the estate on behalf of creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 704(1). In my view, the panel’s search for guidance in the Code’s legislative history is unnecessary and unproductive.
Second, I am satisfied that the notice given in this case was adequate. All creditors were on notice that the debtors sought dismissal of their cases; interested creditors could learn why by attending the hearing.
I deem it particularly unfortunate that the panel places additional burdens on already overworked clerks’ offices based upon In re Gallman, 6 B.R. 1 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ga. 1980). That court did no more than state what a notice should contain “in order to fully inform the creditors. . . ”. [Emphasis in original]. It neither stated nor held that the notice in that case was inadequate or that it offended due process requirements. In fact, dismissal was granted in Gallman based on the same notice given in this case.
Third, I wish to disassociate myself from the final three paragraphs of the panel’s opinion.