
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 28, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1042                               IN RE:  DANIEL J. DILL,                                       Debtor.                                 ____________________                     GENERAL ELECTRIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY,                                      Appellant,                                          v.                                   DANIEL J. DILL,                                      Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Richard W. Gannett on brief for appellant.            __________________            Leonard A. Berkal and Berkal, Stelman,  Davern & Shribman on brief            _________________     ___________________________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  in                 __________            this case, including the briefs of the parties.  We find that            appellant  has failed to meet  its burden, see  In re Nelson,                                                       ___  ____________            100 Bankr. 905, 906  (Bankr. N.D. Oh. 1989), of  showing that            "assets of such probability, administrability and substance .            .   .  exist  as  to  make  it  unreasonable  under  all  the            circumstances for the court  not to deal  with them."  In  re                                                                   ______            Herzig,  96  B.R.  264,  266  (Bankr.  9th   Cir.  BAP  1989)            ______            (citations  omitted).   We  note  as  well  that  the  record            discloses  no  justification  for  the  substantial  delay in            filing the  motion to  reopen.   See Fed.  R. Bankr.  P. 9024                                             ___            (motion to reopen  must be made within  reasonable time after            case is closed); Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue v.                             _________________________________________            St.  Croix  Hotel Corp.,  60  B.R.  412, 414  (D.V.I.  1986).            _______________________            Therefore,  we find no abuse of discretion in the decision of            the bankruptcy court not  to reopen this case pursuant  to 11            U.S.C.   350(b).                   Affirmed.                 ________
