Dill v. General Electric
Case Date: 07/28/1995
Docket No: 95-1042
|
July 28, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1042 IN RE: DANIEL J. DILL, Debtor. ____________________ GENERAL ELECTRIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DANIEL J. DILL, Appellee. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Richard W. Gannett on brief for appellant. __________________ Leonard A. Berkal and Berkal, Stelman, Davern & Shribman on brief _________________ ___________________________________ for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record in __________ this case, including the briefs of the parties. We find that appellant has failed to meet its burden, see In re Nelson, ___ ____________ 100 Bankr. 905, 906 (Bankr. N.D. Oh. 1989), of showing that "assets of such probability, administrability and substance . . . exist as to make it unreasonable under all the circumstances for the court not to deal with them." In re ______ Herzig, 96 B.R. 264, 266 (Bankr. 9th Cir. BAP 1989) ______ (citations omitted). We note as well that the record discloses no justification for the substantial delay in filing the motion to reopen. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 ___ (motion to reopen must be made within reasonable time after case is closed); Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue v. _________________________________________ St. Croix Hotel Corp., 60 B.R. 412, 414 (D.V.I. 1986). _______________________ Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the decision of the bankruptcy court not to reopen this case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 350(b). Affirmed. ________ |