• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISIONMARK A. ADAMS,Appellant,Case No. 8:08-cv-1570-RALvs.CORPORATE SPORTS MARKETINGGROUP, et al.Appellees. / _________________________________________________________________ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEESON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATHE HONORABLE PAUL M. GLENN, PRESIDING_________________________________________________________________Timothy W. Weber, EsquireFlorida Bar No.: 86789BATTAGLIA, ROSS, DICUS & WEIN, P.A.Wachovia Bank Building980 Tyrone Boulevard (33710)Post Office Box 41100St. Petersburg, Florida 33743(727) 381-2300(727) 343-4059 (fax)Attorneys for Appellees
 
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................IV
 
PREFACE...............................................................................................................VI
 
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE...........................................................1
 
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................12
 
I.
 
WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ABUSEDITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A MOTION FOREXTENSION OF TIME TO OBJECT TO DISCHARGEOR DISCHARGEABILITY UNDER FED.R.BANK.P.4004(B) WITHOUT A HEARING WHERE THEDEBTOR DID NOT TIMELY OBJECT TO THEMOTION, NEVER REQUESTED A HEARING ONTHE MOTION, AND FAILED TO TIMELY SEEKRECONSIDERATION BEFORE APPELLEES RELIEDUPON THE EXTENSION [RESTATED]..........................................12
 
II.
 
WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ABUSEDITS DISCRETION IN EXTENDING, BY 13 DAYS,THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS UNDERFED.R.CIV.P. 4(M), MADE APPLICABLE TOBANKRUPTCY ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS,WHERE THE DEBTOR EVADED SERVICE OFPROCESS AND WHERE A REFUSAL TO GRANTTHE BRIEF EXTENSION WOULD HAVERESULTED IN APPELLEES’ CLAIMS BEING TIME-BARRED [RESTATED].....................................................................20
 
III.
 
WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ERRED INENTERING A JUDGMENT DENYING THEDEBTOR’S DISCHARGE AND THEDISCHARGEABILITY OF THE SANCTIONSJUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES ANDAGAINST THE DEBTOR WITHOUT AN AFFIDAVIT[RESTATED]......................................................................................24
 
 
 
iiiIV.
 
WHETHER THE DEBTOR MAY PROSECUTE ANUNTIMELY APPEAL FROM ORDERS ANDJUDGMENTS ENTERED AGAINST LISA ADAMSAND LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. ADAMS, P.A.WHERE THE DEBTOR, A DISBARRED ATTORNEY,WAS PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROMENGAGING IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICEOF LAW AND WAS WARNED NOT TO REPRESENTTHE INTERESTS OF THESE PARTIES IN THEBANKRUPTCY COURT [RESTATED]...........................................26
 
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................27
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................28
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...