Rosado v. Pablos, No. PR 10-080, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3008 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Aug. 10, 2011) (per curiam)
The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court’s denial of the debtor’s request for entry of a discharge and vacated its order dismissing the debtor’s case. The bankruptcy court granted several extensions of the deadlines for filing a Section 727 complaint objecting to discharge. Despite the extensions, no objections to discharge were filed. After the expiration of the objection deadlines, the Trustee filed a report of no distribution. Subsequently, the debtor filed his personal financial management certification and a motion requesting that the court enter his discharge. Before the court entered the debtor’s discharge, certain creditors filed a Section 707(a) motion to dismiss on the grounds that the debtor commenced his case in bad faith. The debtor filed a second motion for entry of his discharge, which the bankruptcy court denied. The debtor sought reconsideration, which the bankruptcy court also denied. The debtor then sought leave to appeal from the BAP, which relief the BAP denied as interlocutory. The debtor’s case was ultimately dismissed pursuant to the Section 707(a) motion. The debtor appealed the dismissal of his case and the denial of his requests for a discharge.
Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(c), a court shall grant a discharge upon expiration of the times fixed for filing objections to discharge and motions to dismiss under Rule 1017(e)(1) unless an exception applies. Rule 4004(c)(1)(D) permits a court to delay entry of a debtor’s discharge if a Section 707 motion to dismiss is pending. Certain creditors did file a Section 707(a) motion to dismiss; however, no such motion was pending when the times fixed for filing objections to discharge or motions to dismiss under Rule 1017(e) expired. The only pending complaints at that time were Section 523 complaints, which are insufficient to delay a discharge from entering under Rule 4004(c). Because the bankruptcy court had no basis under 4004(c) to deny or delay entry of the debtor’s discharge, the court abused its discretion by denying the debtor’s motion for entry of his discharge.