invoked to offer excuses for neglect leading up to the judgment in the first place, not excuses for neglect for failure to file post-judgment motions to alter or amend. Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 n. 14 (8th Cir.1988); see, e.g., In re Freightway Corp., 170 B.R. 108 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1994) (seeking reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of order denying creditor’s claim for failure of creditor to appear); In re King, 165 B.R. 296 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994) (seeking rehearing under Rule 60(b) for order granting motion to value collateral where creditor failed to respond); Elliot v. Hancock (In re Hancock), 160 B.R. 677 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1993) (seeking relief under Rule 60(b) from default judgment entered when no answer was filed); cf. In re Gray, 156 B.R. 707 (Bankr.D.Maine 1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Bowden, 138 B.R. 584
holding that equitable tolling applied to federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 4004 providing the statute of limitations for filing objections to discharge holding that where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employees assertion of statutory rights the discharge is discriminatory under section 215a3 whether or not grounds for other discharge exist holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp holding creditors could not attack debtors discharge as it applied to them by characterizing motion as under rule 60b where procedure to challenge discharge was provided by statute holding that rule 60b was not applicable to extend the time to file an action to revoke a discharge under grounds of mistake and not addressing equitable tolling