Gleason v. Jansen

Bankruptcy Ct. did not err in denying creditor’s motion for relief of judgment under Rule 9024 that essentially sought to reopen creditor’s adversary proceeding seeking declaration that $400,000 debt was non-dischargeable under 11 USC section 523(a)(2)(A) where debt represented obligation involving fraud upon creditor. While creditor argued that “newly discovered” evidence established that debtor had perjured himself at trial to determine whether debt was dischargeable, Bankruptcy Court could properly find that said evidence was always available through PACER, and thus was not newly discovered evidence for purposes of supporting any revisit of Bankruptcy Ct. order finding that creditor had failed to establish that debtor had misused creditor’s money or had obtained it fraudulently. Also, creditor could not appeal Dist. Ct.’s order dismissing without prejudice creditor’s appeal on merits of Bankruptcy Ct. order finding that said debt was not dischargeable since, although said order was final and appealable despite “without prejudice” notation by Bankruptcy Ct., creditor had failed to file timely notice of notice of appeal from said order. Fact that Bankruptcy Ct. had erroneously dismissed without prejudice creditor’s appeal of merits of section 523(a)(2)(A) issue due to misunderstanding that the creditor’s appeal of denial of his Rule 9024 motion had raised same issues, or that Dist. Ct. had lulled creditor into erroneously believing that he could raise merits of section 523(a)(2)(A) issue in appeal of denial of creditor’s Rule 9024 motion did not require different result.