Order Vacating Order of Chapter 7?

[Anonymous17]

I just received a document from the court 2 years after my bankruptcy was discharged. I filed pro se and due to a divorce:

The letter states:

Order Vacating Order approving chapter 7 account discharging trustee, canceling bond and closing estate.

the case came before the court's own motion. The order approving chapter 7 account, discharging trustee, cancelling bond, and closing estate. The order was signed by the court in error and entered (date) approximately 2.5 years ago. Therefore it is ordered that the order is vacated.

what are the legal implications of this?


Am I liable now after discharge - liquidating my estate etc? What would give the court cause to do this?

i have worked tirelessly for the last 2.5 years to repair my credit and raise my income level. Am I now once again liable for wage garnishment, repossession of assets etc?

this is an error on the part of the court, not mine. I did everything correct in my filing.

Probably time to lawyer up.

any advice?

thanks!!!!

[justbroke]

If they vacated your discharge, the implication is that you have no discharge of your debts. Your creditors may be able come for you if the case closes again without the discharge and no stay in place. There is no way to tell why because the order seems to just say that the discharge was incorrectly entered -- and it was sua sponte (on the court's own motion). There could be so many issues it's probably not worth guessing.

If you believe it's in error, then you may need to immediately file a motion for reconsideration or a motion to reinstate. Yes, it may be time to get an attorney.

Also, this re-opening may be to correct something. I would check PACER to see if there are knew filings on the docket and then another discharge entered immediately after.

[LadyInTheRed]

It reads to me like the order being vacated discharged the trustee, not your debt. Check your order for discharge to see if it is the date of the vacated order. Was your case an asset case? If so, maybe they just discovered that the trustee did not distribute all of the assets.

[justbroke]

Now that i re-read it, LadyInTheRed, it does read as if it's just the "close" that was vacated and that the Trustee may have been re-instated to deal with something (hopefully) minor. I agree that it wasn't the discharge itself but the discharge of the Trustee.