Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Linda L. GARMONG, Debtor, Gregory Garmong, Appellant, v. Linda L. Garmong, Appellee.
MEMORANDUM ***
Dr. Gregory Garmong appeals from a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to alter or amend the order of discharge under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 applicable to bankruptcy cases). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision regarding reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Garmong’s motion because Dr. Garmong failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (listing bases for granting reconsideration under Rule 59(e)). Under Bankruptcy Rules 4004(a) and 7001(4), Dr. Garmong’s objections to his ex-wife’s discharge under §§ 727(a)(2)(B), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(4)(B) required adjudication through an adversary proceeding. See In re Retz, 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (creditors objecting to discharge under §§ 727(a)(2)(B), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(4)(B) “bear[ ] the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the debtor’s] discharge should be denied” (alterations in original) (quoting Khalil v. Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. (In re Khalil), 379 B.R. 163, 172 (9th Cir. BAP 2007), aff’d, 578 F.3d 1167, 1168 (9th Cir. 2009))). Dr. Garmong filed an adversary proceeding, which the bankruptcy court dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dr. Garmong neither appealed that dismissal nor requested a stay of the dismissal order. He cannot use a motion for reconsideration as a substitute for the appeal he should have taken from the dismissal of the adversary proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-60017
Decided: June 18, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)