Volume 5 Winter 2011 Number 2 - Charleston Law Review

CHARLESTON LAW REVIEW [Volume 5that the debtor failed to comply with the Code’s provisions wasnot a hindrance to obtaining a discharge of that debt. 13This Article delves into this “quirk” in the law where,although a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding may not havecomplied with the provisions of the Code, a discharge of certainaffected debts may nonetheless be allowed. We explore varioustypes of circumstances wherein the decision by the Court inEspinosa may be analogously applied to excuse the debtor’sregulatory compliance. The authors further explore statutorynotice requirements generally and how other courts have excusedde facto noncompliance with these statutory requirements.Of course, the unscrupulous debtor might view Espinosaopportunistically. Indeed, the Court itself acknowledged thispossibility by stating: “We acknowledge the potential for badfaithlitigation tactics.” 14 Hence, we note the negative impactthis decision may have upon creditors in bankruptcy cases. Yet,as the authors note, there are certainly adequate prophylacticmeasures in the Code to condemn any actions that might be donewith the fraudulent or dishonest intention of avoiding thepayment of a debt. 15 The authors conclude by providingregulatory and administrative suggestions to thwart any suchintended or unintended breaches of the Code.II. BANKRUPTCY CODE REQUIREMENTS TO CONDUCTADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGSA. The Nature of Adversary Proceedings1. In GeneralThe Rules specify the types of matters for which anadversary proceeding must be conducted. 16 As mentioned in theintroductory discussion, 17 adversary proceedings are required by19813. Id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 1380.14. Id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 1382.15. E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 152(9) (2006).16. FED.R.BANKR.P. 7001 (2006).17. See supra Part I.