11 U.S.C. § 350
Closing and reopening cases
Subsection (a) requires the court to close a bankruptcy case after the estate is fully administered and the trustee discharged. The Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will provide the procedure for case closing. Subsection (b) permits reopening of the case to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause. Though the court may permit reopening of a case so that the trustee may exercise an avoiding power, laches may constitute a bar to an action that has been delayed too long. The case may be reopened in the court in which it was closed. The rules will prescribe the procedure by which a case is reopened and how it will be conducted after reopening.
1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–353 substituted “A” for “a”.
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,176
cases (194 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Sandra Slater v. United States Steel Corporation
Sandra Slater v. United States Steel Corporation (2016)
“Nondisclosed lawsuits and settlements would normally come to the Bankruptcy Judge’s attention on a motion to reopen the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 . If a case were still open, the debtor would not need to bring the matter to the court’s attention because Rule 1009 of the…”
Menk v. Lapaglia (In Re Menk) (1999)
“Bankr.P. 5010. b Essentially all litigation within a bankruptcy case is a "civil proceeding" within § 1334(b) "arising under, arising in, or related to" jurisdiction, which jurisdiction is concurrent with state courts.”
Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Reyvis Garcia (2012)
“Debtors could (1) assert the discharge provided by the Confirmation Order as an affirmative defense in the State Court case; (2) remove the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.”
Susan Judd v. Lawrence Wolfe, Susan Judd, Debtor (1996)
“Debtor Susan Judd appeals from a decision of the district court, affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of her motion to reopen her bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b). Judd sought to reopen her no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy case for the sole purpose of amending her…”
GMX Resources v. Kleban (In Re Petroleum Production Management, Inc.) (2002)
“) On October 9, 2001, GMX filed a motion in the Kansas bankruptcy court seeking to reopen the Debtors’ jointly administered Chapter 11 cases under 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) and Fed. R. Bankr.P. 5010.”
Bowen v. Franks (In Re Bowen) (1989)
“OPINION JONES, Bankruptcy Judge: The Debtors appeal from an order denying their motion to reopen their case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) to add an omitted creditor to the schedules.”
In re Gill (2015)
“The Debtor has not demonstrated cause to reopen under 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) because she would not prevail on her proposed sanctions claim if her Chapter 7 cáse was reopened.”
Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation (2013)
“11 U.S.C. § 350 (b); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5010.”
Walnut Associates v. Saidel (1994)
“The court finds that where a bankruptcy case is closed and the estate no longer exists, and where plaintiff does not seek to have the bankruptcy case opened for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) and Bankruptcy Rule 5010, the court is without jurisdiction to entertain any…”
Willie Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (2012)
“3 However, this court has observed that “‘[a]llowing [the debtor] to back-up, 3 There are several ways a dishonest debtor could “cure” his nondisclosure and be considered blameless under the dissent’s rationale.”
Nuveen Municipal Trust Ex Rel. Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond Fund v. WithumSmith Brown, P.C. (2012)
“See 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) (“A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.”
Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP (In Re Seven Fields Development Corp.) (2007)
“Does a bankruptcy court have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a case removed from state court where the underlying bankruptcy case on which removal is predicated was closed many years before removal and where the removing party did not seek to open the earlier…”
— 11 U.S.C. § 350(a) — 37 cases
In re: Speer (2022)
Kristyn M. Curry (2020)
— 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) — 6 cases
In Re Koch (1999)
In Re Rediker (1982)
In re Gianopolous (2018)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.