In its recent decision, Matter of Langston, 59 F.4th 346 (5th Cir. 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit or court) found that “the time limits set forth in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are subject to equitable defenses.” In particular, the court examined two Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (rules or, individually, a rule): Rule 2003(e) and Rule 4003(b)(1). Rule 2003(e) provides that a trustee who adjourns a section 341(a) meeting of creditors “must promptly file a statement showing the adjournment and the date and time to reconvene.” Rule 4003(b)(1), in turn, provides that a party in interest has 30 days to object to a debtor’s exemptions following the conclusion of the meeting of creditors. There is a degree of interplay between the two rules, since if a meeting of creditors is not adjourned, but rather is concluded, then the 30-day clock on the deadline to object to exemptions begins to run.

In examining these rules, the court made two notable holdings. First, the court held that Rule 2003(e) does not contain a “bright line” test that deems a meeting of creditors concluded if notice of the meeting’s adjournment is not provided in accordance with Rule 2003(e). Second, the court held that Rule 4003(b)(1)’s deadline to object to exemptions is subject to equitable defenses, including waiver.

Background

In this case, a creditor, Dallas Commodity Co. (Dallas Commodity), obtained a $1.5 million judgment in state court against Joseph F. Langston Jr. (Langston) and Langston Family Limited Partnership (Langston LP). Langston subsequently filed for Chapter 7, and three days later placed Langston LP into a separate involuntary Chapter 7 case. In his personal case, Langston claimed exemptions in two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) holding over $500,000.

The Chapter 7 trustee in Langston’s case (trustee) conducted several Section 341 meetings of creditors. On May 26, 2021, the trustee conducted what would be the final meeting of creditors in Langston’s case (May 26 meeting). At the end of the May 26 meeting, Langston, his counsel, Dallas Commodity and the trustee all agreed that Langston would amend his bankruptcy schedules, and the trustee would continue the meeting of creditors to a date to be determined. Neither Langston nor his counsel objected to continuing the meeting.

After the May 26 meeting, however, the trustee failed to “file a statement showing the adjournment of the meeting and the date and time to reconvene” as required by Rule 2003(e) (written notice requirement). In fact, no further meeting of creditors was ever conducted following the May 26 meeting.

In September 2021, the trustee of the Langston LP estate (Langston LP trustee) filed an adversary proceeding against Langston (adversary proceeding) asserting claims related to the IRAs that Langston claimed as exempt. Langston later amended his personal bankruptcy schedules in November 2021, some six months after the May 26 meeting. In February 2022, Langston, the trustee and the Langston LP trustee submitted an agreed order (agreed order) by which the parties agreed to abate the adversary proceeding until after the bankruptcy court had ruled on any objections to Langston’s exemptions.

On March 9, 2022, nearly 10 months after the May 26 meeting, the trustee made a docket entry in Langston’s case stating that the meeting of creditors was “held and concluded 5/26/2021.”

On April 8, 2022, Dallas Commodity objected to Langston’s exemptions in the IRAs (objection). Langston argued that the objection was untimely under Rule 4003(b)(1) because it was filed more than 30 days after the May 26 meeting.

The bankruptcy court rejected Langston’s untimeliness argument, noting that the objection was filed within 30 days of the March 9, 2022, docket entry, and finding that “considerations of fairness and due process” supported overruling Langston’s untimeliness objection. The district court affirmed. Langston, in turn, appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit’s Analysis

The Fifth Circuit noted that there was no dispute that the trustee had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 2003(e) and follow through with his representation that he would reconvene the meeting of creditors following the May 26 meeting. Rather, the dispute was over the ramifications of these actions.

Langston argued that Rule 2003(e), which was amended in 2011 to add the written notice requirement, establishes a “bright line” rule whereby a meeting of creditors is deemed concluded if the meeting is not continued in accordance with the rule. Dallas Commodity, in turn, argued that the case of Matter of Peres, 530 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2008), a Fifth Circuit decision predating Rule 2003(e)’s written notice requirement, governs whether Langston’s meeting of creditors concluded with the May 26 meeting. In Peres, the Fifth Circuit adopted a “case-by-case” approach that evaluated the reasonableness of a delay in reconvening a meeting of creditors to determine when a meeting of creditors concluded.

In the Langston case, the Fifth Circuit declined to adopt Langston’s proposed bright-line rule, finding no support for it in either the commentary to Rule 2003(e) or in circuit-level case law analyzing the rule following the 2011 amendment. Moreover, the court found Peres’s case-by-case approach inapposite because, unlike in Peres, no continued meeting of creditors ever took place; hence, the reasonableness of a delay between meetings was not at issue.

Ultimately, the court rejected the lower courts’ determination that Langston’s final meeting of creditors concluded with the March 9, 2022, docket entry, finding it to be “a fiction that cannot be supported.” Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Langston’s meeting of creditors concluded May 26, 2021, with the May 26 meeting.

As a result of this holding, the court determined that the objection was untimely under Rule 4003(b)(1), as it was filed on April 8, 2022, far more than 30 days after the May 26, 2021, conclusion of the meeting of creditors. Nevertheless, the court explained that the time limits set forth in the rules, including Rule 4003(b)(1), are subject to equitable defenses, including the defense of waiver.

The court defined the term “waiver” as “involving the intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right.” Utilizing that definition, the court found that Langston waived his timeliness objection to the objection. In particular, Langston intentionally agreed to continue the May 26 meeting so that he could have time to amend his schedules. Langston then used the months following the May 26 meeting to amend his schedules and enter into the agreed order with the trustee and Langston LP trustee. In fact, Langston never objected to the faulty adjournment of the May 26 meeting until after the objection was filed.

With that backdrop, the Fifth Circuit opined that it would have been unlikely for the trustee and Langston LP trustee to have entered into the agreed order—which stayed the adversary proceeding until any objections to Langston’s exemptions were resolved—if Langston had expressed to them his belief that the deadline to file objections to his exemptions had already expired 30 days after the May 26 meeting. In short, Langston’s words and conduct established that he waived his right to assert Rule 4003(b)(1)’s deadline as a defense to the objection.
Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, although not on the grounds relied upon by the district court.

Conclusion

Langston serves as a reminder to creditors to be vigilant about the conclusion of a meeting of creditors—especially in the bankruptcies of individual debtors who can claim exemptions, as Rule 4003(b)(1)’s deadline to object to exemptions is a relatively short window. If a trustee fails to adjourn a meeting in compliance with Rule 2003(e), there is no harm in giving the trustee a friendly reminder so that the record is made clear. The good news is that Langston serves as a reminder that the expiration of a deadline in the Rules may not be the final word on the matter. While not often the case, there may be an equitable defense to an expired deadline.

Reprinted with permission from law.com, © ALM Media Properties LLC. All rights reserved.