Case Summary:
This case involves hypothetical discharge and its procedural requirements.  Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint to determine whether a debt was dischargeable and the Debtor answered.  But the Plaintiff filed the initial complaint thinking it was against Debtor’s husband who has a similar first name as debtor.  Plaintiff amended the complaint by adding allegations against Debtor’s husband and objecting to the hypothetical discharge of his tortious debt.  However, Plaintiff did not seek the Debtor’s or Court’s consent before amending the complaint.  In addition, the Plaintiff did not name Debtor’s spouse on the amended complaint.  The time limit to object to Debtor’s discharge had since passed.  Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding contending that any complaint seeking to deny Debtor’s spouse’s hypothetical discharge is now time barred.  Plaintiff responded by filing a motion to enlarge the time within which to bring the action under § 523(a)(6), which motion in itself is untimely but which was considered as a motion to further amend the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).  It was determined that the motion to amend the Complaint to name Debtor’s spouse as a defendant is granted.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury
11 U.S.C. § 524(a)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) -- Amendments
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)

Key Terms:
Hypothetical Discharge