Form No. 326 SPECIFICATIONS OF OBJECTION TO DISCHARGE (Hagar and Alexander's Bankruptcy Forms [2d Ed.], No. 274.) United States District Court, ., county of ... district of ... State of a creditor of the above named bankrupt, does hereby oppose the granting to him of a discharge from his debts and for the grounds of such opposition does file the following specifications: First. For the reason that the bankrupt herein has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment under the Bankruptcy Act in that he has knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath and rendered a false account in and in relation to his proceedings in bankruptcy, as follows: [Here set forth facts specifically.] Second. For the reason that he has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment under the Bankruptcy Act in that he has knowingly and fraudulently concealed, while a bankrupt, from his trustee property and assets belonging to his estate, as follows: Third. For the reason that with intent to conceal his true financial condition he has failed to keep books of account or records, and has destroyed and concealed books of account or records, from which such financial condition might be ascertained. Fourth. For the reason that during the course of the proceedings. in said bankruptcy he refused to answer material questions approved by the court, to wit: Wherefore, objection is made to the granting of such application for a discharge. Objecting Creditor. Attorney for Creditor. [Verification.] [Address.] Cross-references. Consult, generally, § 14, ante, and General Order XXXII. This form is thought more in accord with § 14-b and such general order than is Form No. 58. See also forms just ante and post. If appearance is entered, specifications need not be filed until 10 days there after. Mandatory provision. In re Albrecht, 5 Am. B. R. 223, 104 Fed. 974. In re Clothier, 6 Am. B. R. 203, 108 Fed. 199. Time limit. In re C. H. Kendrick & Co., 35 Am. B. R. 630, 226 Fed. 980. Should be filed with clerk, not referee. s. c. (supra). Who may file. Any person having a pecuniary interest in resisting the discharge. [See § 14, ante.] One having an unliquidated claim may file. In re Conroy, 14 Am. B. R. 249, 134 Fed. 764. Bankrupt's schedules prima facie evidence that person scheduled is a creditor to enable such creditor to oppose discharge. In re Barrager (D. C., Ia.), 27 Am. B. R. 366, 191 Fed. 247. Creditor with unproved debt may file. In re Nathanson (D. C., N. Y.), 19 Am. B. R. 56, 155 Fed. 645. In re Frice (D. C., Ia.), 2 Am. B. R. 674, 96 Fed. 611. Assignee of judgment with unproved claim. Haley v. Pope (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 30 Am. B. R. 644, 206 Fed. 266, 124 C. C. A. 330. Creditor holding non-dischargeable debt not entitled to file. In re Servis, 15 Am. B. R. 271, 140 Fed. 222. Remedy where such creditor has filed. In re Nathanson (supra). Attorney's authority to file presumed. In re Gasser (C. C. A. 8th Cir.), 5 Am. B. R. 32, 104 Fed. 537, 44 C. C. A. 20. Filing nunc pro tunc. In re Frice, 2 Am. B. R. 674, 96 Fed. 611. A creditor may prosecute objections in forma pauperis. In re Guilbert, 18 Am. B. R. 830, 154 Fed. 676. Several creditors may sign and verify the same specifications of objection. Milgraum v. Ost, 12 Am. B. R. 306, 129 Fed. 827. Two grounds of objection may not be alleged in one specification. In re Wetmore, 6 Am. B. R. 703. Objection of non-residence. In re Goodale, 6 Am. B. R. 493, 109 Fed. 783. Specifications must be clear and unequivocal and contain specific averments of facts, not mere conclusions.-[See § 14, ante.] In re Taplin, 14 Am. B. R. 360, 135 Fed. 861. In re Wolfensohn, 5 Am. B. R. 60. In re Shepherd, 2 N. B. N. Rep. 1020. In re Servis, 15 Am. B. R. 271, 140 Fed. 222. In re Parish, 10 Am. B. R. 548, 122 Fed. 553. Bragassa v. St. Louis Cycle, 5 Am. B. R. 700, 107 Fed. 77. In re Ginsburg, 12 Am. B. R. 459, 130 Fed. 627. In re Gara (D. C., Pa.), 26 Am. B. R. 573, 190 Fed. 112. Not as strict as an indictment. In re Blalock, 9 Am. B. R. 266, 118 Fed. 679. Must be in writing. Matter of Ruhlman & Rafter, ( C. C. A. 2d Cir.), 48 Am. B. R. 1, 279 Fed. 250. Grounds of objection limited to those set forth in specifications. [See § 14, ante.] In re Taplin (supra). In re Halsell, 13 Am. B. R. 106, 132 Fed. 562. In re Peacock, 4 Am. B. R. 136, 101 Fed. 560. In re Hendrick, 14 Am. B. R. 795, 138 Fed. 473. Intermingling of property amounting to concealment. In re Graves, 26 Am. B. R. 633, 189 Fed. 847. Rule of District Court as to dismissal for laches held not invalid as adding a new ground for the refusal of a discharge. In re Wollowitz (C. C. A. 2nd Cir.), 27 Am. B. R. 558, 192 Fed. 105, 112 C. C. A. 445. Lindeke v. Converse, 28 Am. B. R. 596, 198 Fed. 618, 117 C. C. A. 322. Delay in bringing on the hearing is not a ground for refusing a discharge. In re Glasberg (C. C. A. 2nd Cir.), 28 Am. B. R. 826, 197 Fed. 896, 117 C. C. A. 235. One of the statutory grounds must be alleged and proved. In re Griffin Bros., 19 Am. B. R. 78, 154 Fed. 537. In re Frank, 6 Am. B. R. 156, 107 Fed. 272. In re Chamberlain (D. C., N. Y.), 25 Am. B. R. 37, 180 Fed. 304. Preference made without intent to defraud. In re Mintzer, 28 Am. B. R. 743, 197 Fed. 647. Effect of perjury upon granting of discharge. In re Kretsch (D. C., N. Y.), 22 Am. B. R. 284, 172 Fed. 523. Sufficiency of specifications.-[See § 14, ante.] E. H. Godshalk Co. v. Sterling (C. C. A. 3rd Cir.), 12 Am. B. R. 302, 129 Fed. 580, 64 C. C. A. 148. In re Blumberg, 13 Am. B. R. 343, 133 Fed. 845. In re Mero, 12 Am. B. R. 171, 128 Fed. 630. Milgraum v. Ost, 12 Am. B. R. 306, 129 Fed. 827. In re Troeder (C. C. A. 1st Cir.), 17 Am. B. R. 723, 150 Fed. 710, 80 C. C. A. 376. In re Wetmore, 6 Am. B. R. 703. In re Hirsch, 2 Am. B. R..715, 96 Fed. 46S. In re McNamara, 2 Am. B. R. 566, 95 Fed. 429. In re Adams, 22 Am. B. R. 613, 171 Fed. 599. In re Kaiser, 3 Am. B. R. 767, 99 Fed. 689. In re Wakefield (D. C., N. Y.), 31 Am. B. R. 42, 207 Fed. 180. May sufficiency be attacked before special master to whom specifications have been referred? In re Quackenbush (D. C., N. Y.), 4 Am. B. R. 274, 102 Fed. 282. Vague and indefinite. Matter of Dynames Mfg. Co. (D. C., Mich.), 47 Am. B. R. 309, 276 Fed. 408. "Knowingly and fraudulently."— In re Patterson, 10 Am. B. R. 371, 121 Fed. 921. In re Blalock (supra). In re Beebe, 8 Am. B. R. 597, 116 Fed. 48. In re Peck, 9 Am. B. R. 747, 120 Fed. 972. Klein v. Powell (C. C. A. 3rd Cir.), 23 Am. B. R. 494, 174 Fed. 640, 98 C. C. A. 394. In re Griffin Bros., 19 Am. B. R. 78, 154 Fed. 537. May be amended to include this allegation. In re Knaszak (D. C., N. Y.), 18 Am. B. R. 187, 151 Fed. 503. W. S. Peck Co. v. Lowenbein (C. C. A. 4th Cir.), 24 Am. B. R. 138, 178 Fed. 178, 101 C. C. A. 498. Gilpin v. Merchants' Nat. Bank (C. C. A. 2nd Cir.), 21 Am. B. R. 429, 165 Fed. 607, 91 C. C. A. 445. Burden of proof.— Upon objecting creditors. In re Logan, 4 Am. B. R. 525, 102 Fed. 876. In re Jacobs, 16 Am. B. R. 482, 144 Fed. 868. In re Eades, 16 Am. B. R. 30, 143 Fed. 293, 74 C. C. A. 431. In re Wetmore, 3 Am. B. R. 700, 99 Fed. 703. In re Hamilton, 13 Am. B. R. 333, 133 Fed. 823. Burden on innocent partner. In re Schachter (D. C., N. Y.), 22 Am. B. R. 389, 170 Fed. 683. Proof must be clear and convincing, but not necessarily, "beyond a reasonable doubt." In re Steed and Curtis, 6 Am. B. R. 73, 107 Fed. 682. In re Berner, 4 Am. B. R. 383. In re Troeder (C. C. A., 1st Cir.), 17 Am B. R. 723, 150 Fed. 710, 80 C. C. A. 376. Garry v. Jefferson Bank (C. C. A. 5th Cir.), 26 Am. B. R. 511, 186 Fed. 461, 108 C. C. A. 439. Mere suspicion insufficient. In re Miller (C. C. A. 2nd Cir.), 32 Am. B. R. 397, 212 Fed. 920, 129 C. C. A. 440, rev'g s. c. 30 Am. B. R. 113, 203 Fed. 170. Signature to specifications.— If specifications are made by an individual, he should sign them. If it is a VOL. III-17 corporation such specifications should be signed by the corporation by having its seal affixed by the proper authority. Matter of Abramovitz (D. C., Fla.), 41 Am. B. R. 588, 253 Fed. 299. Verification of specifications.-[See § 14, ante.] Should be verified. In re Baerncop (D. C., Pa.), 9 Am. B. R. 133, 117 Fed. 975. In re Glass (D. C., Tenn.), 9 Am. B. R. 391, 119 Fed. 509. Matter of Dynamic Mfg. Co. (D. C., Mich.), 47 Am. B. R. 309, 276 Fed. 408 "Upon information and belief," insufficient. In re White (D. C., Ore.), 34 Am. B. R. 803, 222 Fed. 688. In re Thomas (D. C., Ia.), 1 Am. B. R. 515, 92 Fed. 912. Contra. In re Jamieson (D. C., Ill.), 9 Am. B. R. 681, 120 Fed. 697 If verified by counsel, state reasons why. In re Baerncoff (supra). In re Bellah, 8 Am. B. R. 310, 116 Fed. 69. In re Osborne (C. C. A. 1st Cir.), 8 Am. B. R. 165, 115 Fed. 1, 52 C. C. A. 595. In re Randall, 20 Am. B. R. 305, 159 Fed. 298. In re Peck (D. C., Conn.), 9 Am. B. R. 747, 120 Fed. 972. See, In re Glass (supra), and Milgraum v. Ost (supra). Sufficiency of verification. In re Nathanson, 19 Am. B. R. 56, 155 Fed. 645. Milgraum v. Ost, 12 Am. B. R. 306, 129 Fed. 827. In re Meurer, 15 Am. B. R. 823, 144 Fed. 445. In re Gift, 12 Am. B. R. 244, 130 Fed. 230. In re Brown (C. C. A. 5th Cir.), 7 Am. B. R. 252, 112 Fed. 49, 50 C. C. A. 118. In re Miller, 27 Am. B. R. 606, 192 Fed. 730. Objection to lack of verification may not be made after case is submitted. In re Robinson, 10 Am. B. R. 477, 123 Fed. 844. Objection to jurat may not be raised for first time on petition for review. E. H. Godshalk Co. v. Sterling (C. C. A. 3rd Cir.), 12 Am. B. R. 302, 129 Fed. 580, 64 C. C. A. 148. Insufficient if signed by attorney of creditor and sworn to on information and belief. Matter of Abramovitz (D. C., Fla.), 41 Am. B. R. 588, 253 Fed 299. Objections to discharge. [See § 14, ante.] (1) "Committed an offense punishable by imprisonment, etc.," refers to § 29-b, (1) (2). Concealment of property. [See §§ 14 and 29 ante.] In re Breitling (C. C. A. 7th Cir.), 13 Am. B. R. 126, 133 Fed. 146, 66 C. C. A. 212. In re Baudouine (C. C. A. 2nd Cir.), 3 Am. B. R. 651, 101 Fed. 574, 41 C. C. A. 318; rev'g 3 Am. B. R. 551, 96 Fed. 536. Vehon v. Ullman (C. C. A. 7th Cir.), 17 Am. B. R. 435, 147 Fed. 694, 78 C. C. A. 82. As to what constitutes. In re Meyers, 5 Am. B. R. 4, 105 Fed. 353. In re Brown, 15 Am. B. R. 350, 140 Fed. 383. In re Gaylord, 7 Am. B. R. 1, 112 Fed. 668, 50 C. C. A. 415. In re Quackenbush, 4 Am. B. R. 274, 102 Fed. 282. Gift to wife. In re Hirshowitz (D. C., Pa.), 27 Am. B. R. 701, 194 Fed. 562. |