Yadidi v. Herzlich (In Re Yadidi)
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge.
Following trial on an objection to discharge, the court sua sponte denied discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 105 instead of ruling on what it deemed a deficient complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 727. We VACATE the order denying discharge as neither a necessary nor an appropriate application of § 105 and REMAND for findings on the § 727 issues, noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) applies to fill the factual gaps in the complaint.
FACTS
The debtor, Moeiz Yadidi, filed this chapter 7 bankruptcy case on January 28, 2000, shortly before his scheduled deposition in a…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCoolCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- McHenry v. RenneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Norwest Bank Worthington v. AhlersSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Helvering v. GowranSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Ruvacalba v. Munoz (In Re Munoz)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Roman (In Re Roman)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Freelife International, LLC v. Butler (In Re Butler)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 2006
- Demos v. Brown (In Re Graves)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- In Re Western Asbestos Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2003
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.