Objecting to a motion to extend time to object to discharge?

[rfassett]

Here is one of those reasons to keep an eye on PACER. February 11th marks the final day to object to discharge. (That is Monday for those that want to keep track.) About 10:00 last evening I checked PACER and found that yesterday the Office of the United States Trustee had filed a motion to extend the time to object to discharge to April 11th - an additional 60 days. No creditors have objected, but the UST is wanting to keep the window open. We have already been up and down on the roller coaster with the UST. On December 21, the UST filed a notice that our case should be presumed to be an abuse. On January 22, the UST files a notice that after reviewing all of the materials filed by the debtor (which the UST has had since November 26th) that no presumption of abuse has arisen. Now, on February 7th, the UST files a motion that it needs more time to review the same documents that they had reviewed prior to January 22nd? We have not been contacted by the UST for additional info or clarification since the original info was sent in November. So bright and early this morning, I fax an objection to the motion to the clerk of courts, reiterating what I have just posted and stating that although we have nothing to hide, since the UST has had the documentation for 74 days already, we fail to see the need for an additional 60 days. I don't know if that will do any good, but I thought it was worth a shot.

Any comments or thoughts? I probably will not know how the judge will rule until Monday. As it is, the case will stay open at least until March 3rd because that is the day of our reaffirmation hearing, but that does not mean the objection window has to stay open, right?

[HHM]

Usually the court will grant one extension, no questions asked, so objecting to it may have been a fruitless endeavor, but you make a good point. Also, usually, the extension ONLY applies to the US trustee filing an objection, creditors are still on the original 60 day clock.

I hope the court sides with you.

[aachudneymiles]

Here is one of those reasons to keep an eye on PACER. February 11th marks the final day to object to discharge. (That is Monday for those that want to keep track.) About 10:00 last evening I checked PACER and found that yesterday the Office of the United States Trustee had filed a motion to extend the time to object to discharge to April 11th - an additional 60 days. No creditors have objected, but the UST is wanting to keep the window open. We have already been up and down on the roller coaster with the UST. On December 21, the UST filed a notice that our case should be presumed to be an abuse. On January 22, the UST files a notice that after reviewing all of the materials filed by the debtor (which the UST has had since November 26th) that no presumption of abuse has arisen. Now, on February 7th, the UST files a motion that it needs more time to review the same documents that they had reviewed prior to January 22nd? We have not been contacted by the UST for additional info or clarification since the original info was sent in November. So bright and early this morning, I fax an objection to the motion to the clerk of courts, reiterating what I have just posted and stating that although we have nothing to hide, since the UST has had the documentation for 74 days already, we fail to see the need for an additional 60 days. I don't know if that will do any good, but I thought it was worth a shot.

Any comments or thoughts? I probably will not know how the judge will rule until Monday. As it is, the case will stay open at least until March 3rd because that is the day of our reaffirmation hearing, but that does not mean the objection window has to stay open, right?

well thats crazy APRIL!?!

[Stressedout]

Here is one of those reasons to keep an eye on PACER. February 11th marks the final day to object to discharge. (That is Monday for those that want to keep track.) About 10:00 last evening I checked PACER and found that yesterday the Office of the United States Trustee had filed a motion to extend the time to object to discharge to April 11th - an additional 60 days. No creditors have objected, but the UST is wanting to keep the window open. We have already been up and down on the roller coaster with the UST. On December 21, the UST filed a notice that our case should be presumed to be an abuse. On January 22, the UST files a notice that after reviewing all of the materials filed by the debtor (which the UST has had since November 26th) that no presumption of abuse has arisen. Now, on February 7th, the UST files a motion that it needs more time to review the same documents that they had reviewed prior to January 22nd? We have not been contacted by the UST for additional info or clarification since the original info was sent in November. So bright and early this morning, I fax an objection to the motion to the clerk of courts, reiterating what I have just posted and stating that although we have nothing to hide, since the UST has had the documentation for 74 days already, we fail to see the need for an additional 60 days. I don't know if that will do any good, but I thought it was worth a shot.

Any comments or thoughts? I probably will not know how the judge will rule until Monday. As it is, the case will stay open at least until March 3rd because that is the day of our reaffirmation hearing, but that does not mean the objection window has to stay open, right?

Hi. What state did you file in? I had a similar situation.

[rfassett]

What do you make of this?

The court today, my 60th day, ordered that the last day to file a complaint objecting to discharge is extended until further Order of Court. The order goes on to say that a status conference is fixed for next week. Is this good, bad or indifferent? Thoughts? Also, should I be giving some serious thought to bringing an attorney into the loop? I am thinking maybe that might be necessary to stop the bullying that I am sensing.

[HHM]

It is neither good or bad; basically, the court granted the trustee's motion, but given that the court scheduled a status check in a week is good sign and indicates that the judge read your opposition.

YOU should appear at the status check conference as that will be your time to plead your case face to face with the judge and get an explanation from the US trustee on exactly what they are looking for, or what their concern is.

I don't think you need an attorney at this point.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

I have nothing to add here, just... I wish you the best, and I hope you come back and tell us how it went! Good luck!!!!

[rfassett]

Rule 2004 examination

Thanks for the support and comments guys and gals. Well, yesterday I got an invitation, in the mail, to contact the UST's office to schedule a Rule 2004 examination. Well I got on the phone today and had about a 45 minute chit chat with a trial lawyer for the UST's office. This girl is who signed my invitation. Apparently they are trying to build a case to dismiss under Section 727 and they need mine and my wife's deposition to help build their case. She was very kind and informative and told me what they are looking at and why. We agreed to meet on March 3rd - the same day as our reaff heaing. Since it is an hour and a-half drive to the court, I thought doing them both at the same time would save time and gas and money. This assumes the Judge grants their extension request at the hearing next Tuesday. In the meantime, I need to study up on Section 727. Any insights? I did ask the trial lawyer how long after the 2004 exam before we would know how this was going to proceed. She said we should know by the end of that meeting. So I guess I will be pushing the Judge to restrict the request for more time to not go past March 3rd. And here is something that caught my attention during the phone call with the trial lawyer. See said that Section 727 does not have the time limits that Section 702 has and that they could even petition the court after the discharge to set aside the discharge and reopen the case to have the case dismissed. I honest to God to not think I have anything to be too concerned about, but all of this poking is starting to affect my blood pressure.