CHP v. Schwyhart, No. 21-10704 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10704 Document: 00516326309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 19, 2022 No. 21-10704 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk In re: Bill Wayne Schwyhart; Carolyn Joyce Schwyhart, Debtors, CHP, L.L.C., Appellee—Cross Appellant, versus Bill Wayne Schwyhart; Carolyn Joyce Schwyhart, Appellants—Cross Appellees. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas USBC No. 3:21-CV-117-G Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Costa and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10704 Document: 00516326309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2022 No. 21-10704 This case calls for direct review of consolidated appeals from two bankruptcy court rulings. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in one appeal and dismiss the other appeal as moot. Bill and Carolyn Schwyhart jointly filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief in 2018. One of their creditors, CHP, L.L.C., brought an adversary proceeding objecting to the Schwyharts’ discharge. Following trial, the bankruptcy court found that CHP had failed to carry its evidentiary burden and denied its objections. CHP timely appealed. While that appeal was pending in district court, the Schwyharts filed a Request for Discharge. The bankruptcy court denied their Request, holding that CHP’s appeal had divested it of jurisdiction to enter supplemental orders bearing on the same substantial rights. The Schwyharts timely appealed. The district court consolidated the appeals and certified them for direct review in this court. We consider CHP’s appeal first. It is “the basic principle of bankruptcy that exceptions to discharge must be strictly construed against a creditor and liberally construed in favor of a debtor.” Matter of Hudson, 107 F.3d 355, 356 (5th Cir. 1997). The bankruptcy court has “wide discretion” to determine whether to uphold a creditor’s objections to discharge. In re Dennis, 330 F.3d 696, 703 (5th Cir. 2003). And because the bankruptcy court’s analysis was necessarily predicated on crucial credibility determinations, it is owed “even greater deference.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 565 (1985). Against this backdrop, we see no basis to disturb the bankruptcy court’s denial of CHP’s objections to the Schwyharts’ discharge. Accordingly, we affirm. And as the Schwyharts acknowledged at oral argument, our affirmance in CHP’s appeal renders their own appeal moot. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
