This no-asset chapter 7 case was closed on December 20, 2000. Because this was a no-asset case, a deadline for creditors to file proofs of claim (a "claims bar date") was never set. The debtors filed a motion to reopen the case on April 23, 2001. They want to reopen the case to add two creditors they inadvertently omitted from their schedules. Having reviewed the motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reopen is denied. This order is without prejudice, however, to the debtors seeking to reopen this case in the future for a creditor's violation of the discharge injunction contained in 11 U.S.C. § 524.

Discussion

The facts in this case are similar to those presented to the Ninth Circuit in In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993). Beezley was also a no asset chapter 7 case in which no claims bar date had been set. The debtor filed a motion to reopen so he could schedule an omitted creditor. The Ninth Circuit upheld the bankruptcy court's denial of the debtor's motion to reopen, stating that "[a]fter such a case is closed, dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling; amendment of [the debtor's] schedules        7 ABR 99  would thus have been a pointless exercise." ⁽¹⁾ The dischargeability of an unscheduled creditor's claim is controlled by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3), rather than by whether the debt has been scheduled. As noted by Judge O'Scannlain in his concurring opinion in Beezley,

It cannot be overemphasized that we deal here with matters that are absolutely fundamental to the integrity of the Bankruptcy Code: the balance struck between the rights of creditors on the one hand, and the policy of affording the debtor a fresh start on the other. How to strike that balance is an inordinately difficult question . . . . Our task is, perhaps, a relatively easier one, for we have only to apply the law as Congress has written it. What Congress deemed a proper balancing of the equities as between debtor and creditor with respect to unlisted debts it has enacted in section 523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. It is not for the courts to restrike that balance according to their own lights. ⁽²⁾

The debtors' motion to reopen will be denied. As in Beezley, the dischargeability of the omitted creditor's claim is controlled by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3). In a no asset chapter 7 case such as the debtor's, the effect of § 523(a)(3) is to discharge unscheduled debts unless such debts are of the type specified within § 523(a)(2) [fraud], (a)(4) [embezzlement, larceny or fraud by a fiduciary], or (a)(6) [willful and malicious injury]. Neither of the claims the debtors seek to include on their schedules appears to fall within these categories. Accordingly, discharge of these claims is controlled by § 523(a)(3) rather than by whether they have been scheduled, and reopening the case to allow the debtors to amend their schedules would serve no purpose.

DATED: May 2, 2001.

BY THE COURT

DONALD MacDONALD IV
United States Bankruptcy Judge