Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Julio Enrique Gil-De La Madrid

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

March 25, 2016

IN RE: JULIO ENRIQUE GIL-DE LA MADRID, Debtor,
v.
BOWLES CUSTOM POOLS & SPA, Defendant, Appellee JULIO ENRIQUE GIL-DE LA MADRID, Plaintiff, Appellant,

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO. Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge.

         Maximiliano Trujillo-Gonzalez was on brief for appellant.

         José Vá zquez Garcí a was on brief for appellee.

         Before Thompson, Hawkins,[*] and Barron, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

Page 372

          HAWKINS, Circuit Judge.

          This appeal arises from a dispute whether the bankruptcy court erred in enlarging time for a creditor to file an unsecured claim. Appellant Julio Enrique Gil-De La Madrid, debtor to Appellee Bowles Custom Pool & Spa, appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's decision to permit Bowles to file an unsecured claim after the initial statutory ninety-day deadline from the date of the initial creditors' meeting had passed.[1] Because this deadline fell in a period between the case's dismissal and subsequent reinstatement, the bankruptcy court reset the deadline to account for the time the case was dismissed and accepted Bowles's claim as timely. We affirm. We also deny Bowles's motion for attorney fees, costs, and/or sanctions.

         I. Background

         After Appellant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, the bankruptcy court set July 19, 2012, as the deadline for creditors to file unsecured claims. On June 13, 2012, the bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the case. Pursuant to Appellant's motion for reconsideration, however, the case was reinstated on August 1, 2012, after the July 19 deadline had passed. When Bowles sought leave to file an untimely unsecured claim on August 7, 2012, explaining it had assumed the July 19 deadline was no longer

Page 373

operative after the case's June dismissal, the bankruptcy court reset the filing deadline to September 6, 2012, and accepted Bowles's claim. The district court affirmed this decision and entered final judgment.

         II. Standard of Review

          A bankruptcy court order on appeal from the district court is reviewed directly. We disturb its factual findings only if clearly erroneous, but apply de novo review to its conclusions of law. In re Furlong, 660 F.3d 81, 86 (1st Cir. 2011).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.