BANKRUPTCY CORNER
BANKRUPTCY CORNER
No Equitable Tolling of the Deadline under 11 U. S. C. § 523( c) and Eleventh Circuit Precedent
JASON S. RIGOLI
In a direct appeal from the bankruptcy court to the Eleventh Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that equitable tolling does not apply to the deadline for a creditor to file a complaint to determine dischargeability pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 523( c). TL90108 LLC v. Ford, Case No. 21- 10456, 2025 U. S. App. LEXIS 20326 *,-- F. 4th--, 2025 WL 2304512( Aug. 11, 2025).
The Applicable Statute and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
Section 523( c) of the Bankruptcy Code requires each creditor to seek a determination on whether its debt should be excepted from the debtor’ s general discharge under 11 U. S. C. § 523( a)( 2),( 4), or( 6).
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007( c) requires that“ a complaint to determine whether a debt is dischargeable under § 523( c) must be filed within 60 days after the first date set for the § 341( a) meeting of creditors.”
The Eleventh Circuit’ s Prior Alton Opinion and the Subsequent Confusion
In a panel decision, the Eleventh Circuit previously ruled that courts have no discretion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007( c) to extend the deadline after that deadline has passed. In re Alton, 837 F. 2d 457( 11th Cir. 1988).
Subsequent to Alton, the United States Supreme Court issued two opinions, which caused divergence among lower courts in this Circuit.
First, was Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 124 S. Ct. 906, 157 L. Ed. 2d 867( 2004), wherein the issue was whether Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004, which, like Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007( c), imposes filing deadlines was jurisdictional and could be raised at any time or could be waived. TL90108 LLC, 2025 U. S. App. LEXIS 20326 at * 12( citing
Kontrick, 540 U. S. at 447)). The Supreme Court held that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004 was not jurisdiction and could be forfeited.
Id. The Supreme Court did not rule on“ whether [ Fed. R. Bankr. P.] 4004’ s time limits were subject to equitable tolling.” Id.( citing Kontrick, at 457).
Second, was Holland v. Florida, 560 U. S. 631, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 177 L. Ed. 2d 130( 2010). In Holland, the Supreme Court held that“ a nonjurisdictional federal statute of limitation is normally subject to a rebuttable presumption in favor of equitable tolling.” TL90108 LLC, 2025 U. S. App. LEXIS 20326 at * 13( citing Holland, 560 U. S. at 645-46( internal quotation marks omitted)).
Eleventh Circuit Precedent
Faced with the two subsequent Supreme Court opinions, the Eleventh Circuit in TL90108 LLC detailed when its prior opinions remain binding. The court stated:
" For a Supreme Court decision to undermine panel precedent to the point of abrogation, the decision must be clearly on point and clearly contrary " to our earlier decision. Edwards v. U. S. Att ' y Gen., 97 F. 4th 725, 743( 11th Cir. 2024)( emphasis omitted)( internal quotation marks omitted). If the Supreme Court " never discussed our precedent and did not otherwise comment on the precise issue before the prior panel, our precedent remains binding." Jennings v. Sec ' y, Fla. Dep ' t of Corr., 108 F. 4th 1299, 1304( 11th Cir. 2024)( alteration adopted)( internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court decision " must demolish and eviscerate each of [ our decision ' s ] fundamental
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 7 props." Id.( internal quotation marks omitted). An intervening decision that " merely weakens the holding of an earlier panel is not sufficient to abrogate that holding." Id.( alteration adopted)( internal quotation marks omitted). Put another way, "[ e ] ven if the reasoning of an intervening high court decision is at odds with a prior appellate court decision, that does not provide the appellate court with a basis from departing from its prior decision." Id. at 1305( internal quotation marks omitted). So long as our precedent ' s holding retains at least " one valid basis or rationale," it remains binding. Del Castillo v. Secy, Fla. Dep ' t of Health, 26 F. 4th 1214, 1223( 11th Cir. 2022).
TL90108 LLC, at * 15-16. Applying these factors to Kontrick and Holland, the Eleventh Circuit found that Kontrick and
Holland were not clearly on point and clearly contrary. Id. at 16. Neither opinion“ discussed” or“ comment [ ed ] on the precise issue” in Alton. Id. at. 16. And, neither opinion demolished or eviscerated each of Alton’ s fundamental props, because in
Alton the Eleventh Circuit had not relied on the jurisdiction vs. nonjurisdictional distinction; the Eleventh Circuit merely stated that the plain language of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007( c) was clear; the Court had no discretion. Id. at * 17-18.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the time limits set forth in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007( c) are not subject to equitable in the Eleventh Circuit.
This article was submitted by Jason S. Rigoli, Esq., Furr and Cohen, P. A., 2255 Glades Road, Suite 419A, Boca Raton, FL 33431, jrigoli @ furrcohen. com