Ridel Allegre Fernández Rosado (the “Debtor”) appeals from a bankruptcy court order dismissing his case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 707(a). The Debtor contends that the bankruptcy court erred in denying his requests for the entry of his discharge and in dismissing his case for bad faith under Section 707(a).
Bankruptcy Rule 4004 governs the timing of granting or denying a debtor’s discharge in chapter 7. Bankruptcy Rule 4004(c), provides:
(1) In a chapter 7 case, on expiration of the times fixed for objecting to discharge and for filing a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 1017(e), the court shall forthwith grant the discharge unless:
. . .
(B) a complaint, or a motion under Section 727(a)(8) or (a)(9), objecting to the discharge has been filed and not decided in the debtor’s favor;
. . .
(D) a motion to dismiss the case under Section 707 is pending;
. . .
(F) a motion to extend the time for filing a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 1017(e)(1) is pending;
In this case, none of the exceptions listed in Bankruptcy Rule 4004(c) were present on the expiration of the extended deadline. The only pending complaints were those seeking adetermination of an exception to the dischargeability of particular debts under Section 523. The pendency of such complaints is not a sufficient reason to delay a debtor’s discharge under the rule. Because it had no basis upon which to delay or deny the entry of the discharge, the bankruptcy court was required to grant the discharge “forthwith.”
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion and erred when it denied the Debtor’s requests for entry of his discharge.
Reversed and remanded.