503 S.W.2d 938 (1973)
Violet PARKER and H.C. Parker, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Bill WARREN, d/b/a Warren Enterprises et al., Defendants.
Bill WARREN, d/b/a Warren Enterprises, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William Austin NAILLING, d/b/a Nailling Mill & Lumber Company, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section.
September 4, 1973.
Certiorari Denied January 7, 1974.
*940 James M. Glasgow, Elam, Glasgow, Tanner & Acree, Union City, for the appellant Warren, etc.
Miles & Miles, Union City, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Heathcock & Burcham, Union City, for third party defendants-appellees.
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court January 7, 1974.
*941 MATHERNE, Judge.
The plaintiff Violet Parker accompanied by her husband H.C. Parker, her son and his family, attended a wrestling match at Union City, Tennessee. The plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries when a board upon which she was seated, the same being a part of the bleachers provided for patrons of the event, broke, causing the plaintiff to fall about six or eight feet and land on a concrete floor. The plaintiff sued for damages due to these injuries, and her husband sued for loss of services and expenses incurred.
The plaintiffs sue the defendant C.O. Berry, owner of the premises, and the defendant Bill Warren d/b/a Warren Enterprises as the promoter of the wrestling match. The plaintiffs allege the bleachers were under the exclusive control of the defendants, and the defendants failed in their duty to keep the bleachers in a reasonably safe condition considering the crowds attending the events and the use to which the bleachers would normally be employed. The defendants by separate answer deny all allegations of failure of duty; and allege the plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety, was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk of injury.
The defendants Warren and Berry filed a third party complaint against William Austin Nailling, d/b/a Nailling Mill & Lumber Company, the supplier of the lumber used in the bleachers; Buck Kirk, J.R. Moran and Paul Rice, carpenters, who allegedly constructed the bleachers. The gist of the third party complaint is that the named third party defendants were negligent in erecting, furnishing, supplying and constructing the bleachers with defective materials; and in failing to inspect the bleachers and discover the defects therein. The third party defendants are alleged to have furnished and used material in a defective condition which was unreasonably dangerous to the patrons of the wrestling match; and, they are liable on the theories of express and implied warranty under T.C.A. §§ 47-2-313, 47-2-315. The third party plaintiffs ask for judgment over against the third party defendants for any amounts the third party plaintiffs may be held liable to the original plaintiffs.
The lawsuit was tried before a jury. A verdict was entered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Warren, the promoter of the wrestling match. The jury found in favor of the defendants Berry and Disabled American Veterans. The jury found in favor of all third party defendants. Judgment was entered on the verdicts. The defendant Warren appeals from the judgment against him, and he also appeals from the judgment which dismissed his third party action.
We will first consider the appeal of the defendant Warren from the verdict and judgment rendered against him and in favor of the plaintiffs. There are twenty-three assignments of error which overlap extensively and relate to all phases of the appeal. As pertains to the judgment rendered against him we conclude the defendant Warren insists upon a reversal wherein: (1) There is no material evidence to support the verdict; (2) The verdict is excessive; (3) The trial judge erred in the instructions given on res ipsa loquitur, which doctrine is not applicable to the lawsuit; (4) The trial judge erred in his definition of the duties of a proprietor of a place of amusement; (5) The trial judge erred in his instructions that the patron is not required to make an inspection of the premises; (6) When read as a whole the instructions are misleading and disjointed; (7) The trial judge erred in admitting into evidence a broken board, allegedly found in the building one week after the accident.
The facts establish the defendant Warren leased the building from the defendant Berry for the purpose of conducting a wrestling match one night each week, at a rental of $50.00 per week, or match. The ring in which the wrestlers perform is owned by Warren. The defendant Berry *942 agreed to construct bleachers on all sides of the ring, and Warren was to pay Berry the cost of construction at the rate of $25.00 per week. Berry hired J.R. Moran and Paul Rice to construct the bleachers, and paid them by the hour. Will Austin Nailling, d/b/a Nailling Mill & Lumber Company, drew a sketch of how the risers and braces should be constructed. Berry bought lumber from Nailling for the construction of the bleachers. After the bleachers were completed, the defendant Warren contacted Buck Kirk to build two additional rows of seats at the top of the bleachers. Kirk got Paul Rice and two men named Cherry to construct these additional seats. The lumber used came from Nailling's lumber company, but the proof fails to establish who ordered the lumber. Warren paid for the lumber, and paid Kirk for the labor; Kirk in turn paid Rice and the Cherry men. The defendant Berry testified positively that he did not know two rows of seats had been added to the top of the bleachers. These additional two rows of seats were constructed prior to the accident in question. Neither the defendant Berry nor the defendant Warren inspected the bleachers or the additions thereto.
The plaintiff was seated on the top seat of the bleachers at the south side of the building. The wrestling match had concluded and it was time to leave. It appears the wrestlers all got back in the ring and were engaged in what appeared to be a fight. The crowd became very excited and people were yelling and shouting. The plaintiff remained seated with her young grandson in her lap. It appears the other members of the family seated on the same seat as the plaintiff stood up, and they all sat back down at approximately the same time, whereupon the board which formed the bleacher seat broke, and the plaintiff fell to the concrete floor. Both defendants Berry and Warren knew that crowds at wrestling matches become highly excited, and the individual patrons indulge in stomping, shouting and jumping up and down.
We hold it to be an unusual occurrence for a seat at a wrestling match to break under the weight of the patrons thereon, and in the ordinary course of things this does not happen. Where the thing causing the harm is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, if affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. Southern Gas Corporation v. Brooks (1961), 50 Tenn. App. 1, 359 S.W.2d 570. The foregoing statement of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to this lawsuit, and the happening of the event under the circumstances stated would warrant an inference of negligence upon the part of the defendants Berry and Warren. It is not necessary that the plaintiff prove a specific act of negligence; the inference makes a jury question. When, as here, the prerequisites of the doctrine are met the defendant must come forward with explanatory proof, and the jury is permitted to choose the inference of the defendant's negligence in preference to other permissible or reasonable inferences. Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Sullivan (1942), 178 Tenn. 405, 158 S.W.2d 721, 171 A.L.R. 1200.
In the case at bar, the defendant Berry proved he had no part in the construction of the two topmost rows of seats on the bleachers. Neither defendant Berry nor Warren could prove any act of inspection by either of them. Both defendants admitted knowledge of the excitable nature of a crowd watching a wrestling match. Neither defendant could prove any standard of quality set by them as to the type lumber used in the bleachers; they stated the bleachers were built according to the rough sketch of the risers and braces as submitted by Nailling for that purpose. Nailling, however, testified the construction of the risers and braces was not according to his sketch, and explained the difference in detail.
*943 Under this condition of the proof the rule is that when all the evidence is in, the question as to whether the defendant has rebutted the inference raised against him is for the jury. The case must be submitted to the jury for it to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, with the burden of proof remaining with the plaintiff. The weight of the explanation by the defendant, like the weight of the inference raised for the plaintiff, is for the determination of the jury. Casenburg v. Lewis (1931), 163 Tenn. 163, 40 S.W.2d 1038; 65A, C.J.S. Negligence § 220.20, p. 596.
In considering the duty owed by a proprietor of a wrestling match to the patrons attending the event, we find the law established in this state that when one expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit. Chattanooga Warehouse & Cold Storage Co. v. Anderson (1918), 141 Tenn. 288, 210 S.W. 153; Worsham v. Dempster (1923), 148 Tenn. 267, 255 S.W. 52. The duty thus imposed upon the proprietor or promoter of a wrestling match requires ordinary care in respect to the condition of the bleachers or seats furnished. See: 4 Am.Jur.2d, Amusements and Exhibitions, § 57, p. 175 et seq.; cases annotated at 87 A.L.R.2d 1188; 86 C.J.S. Theaters & Shows § 39, p. 714 et seq.
We further hold that it is not necessary that the proprietor of the event have actual knowledge of the defect which causes injury, because one element of the duty imposed upon him is that of inspection to see that the seats provided are safe for occupancy. 4 Am.Jur.2d, supra, and the cases cited at footnotes 8 and 9 at page 177; cases annotated at 21 A.L.R.2d 429.
We conclude, under the proof, the jury could find the plaintiff was injured under circumstances which justify an inference that her injuries would not have occurred had the defendant Warren, who was in charge of the seating arrangement used for spectators at the wrestling match, exercised ordinary care for the plaintiff's safety. See and compare: Lawson v. Clawson (1939), 177 Md. 333, 9 A.2d 755; Nownes v. Hillside Lounge, Inc. (1965), 179 Neb. 157, 137 N.W.2d 361; Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Assoc. (1967), 260 Iowa 1061, 152 N.W.2d 293; Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp. (1956), 333 Mass. 740, 133 N.E.2d 250. The jury apparently found the explanation offered by Berry, the owner of the building, sufficient to offset the inference against him; and that the plaintiff did not carry the burden of proof as to the defendant Berry.
Patrons of a place of public amusement are required to use ordinary care to avoid injury. In the absence of notice to the contrary, a patron attending a place where a sporting event is being held is entitled to assume that the premises are in a reasonably safe condition; the patron is not required to make an inspection to determine the safety of the premises. 86 C.J.S. Theaters & Shows, § 47 pp. 743-745. The testimony reveals that H.C. Parker observed a "knot" in the board upon which he and his wife were seated. He apparently did not call this to the attention of his wife, and he did not change seats. Whether the foregoing constituted contributory negligence on his part was a question for the jury.
By the testimony of Mr. Jere Gordon, an attorney for the plaintiffs, a broken board was introduced into evidence. Mr. Gordon testified that after he was employed by the plaintiffs, and about a week after the accident, he went to the building where the plaintiff was injured and found the board under the bleachers at the south side of the building. The defendant insists *944 the trial judge erred in admitting the board into evidence. It was not necessary that the plaintiffs prove the board that broke was of inferior quality. It is established a board did break while being subjected to the normal use to which it was employed by the defendant Warren. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur the inference of negligence would take the case to the jury. Any error in the admission of the board into evidence was harmless. T.C.A. §§ 27-116, 27-117.
The plaintiff Violet Parker is 52 years of age. Prior to the accident she was able-bodied and worked on the farm with her husband, did her household work and baby-sat for compensation. Since the accident she has experienced constant pain; she cannot do manual labor; she needs assistance with normal household duties, and does not work as a baby-sitter. This plaintiff sustained a compressed fracture of the twelfth vertebra of the thoracic spine. The plaintiff is fitted with a back brace which she now wears. The plaintiff was hospitalized for three weeks immediately after the injury, and was rehospitalized in December, 1971. Medical testimony gives the plaintiff a 15 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The plaintiff cannot sleep and rest normally, and the injuries have interfered with her normal marital relations with her husband. The plaintiff H.C. Parker has incurred approximately $1,000 doctor and hospital bills. We conclude the verdict and judgment of $26,500 for Violet Parker, and the verdict and judgment of $4,465 for her husband H.C. Parker, do not in any manner shock the conscience of the Court, each amount is justified by the evidence, and the verdicts are not excessive.
Many assignments and much argument is advanced to the effect the trial judge improperly charged the jury. We have carefully reviewed the charge, and we hold the issues were fairly charged. We fail to find the charge subject to the many attacks leveled against it, and we overrule all assignments directed to the charge of the court. It results all assignments of error directed toward the verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Bill Warren, d/b/a Warren Enterprises, are overruled, and that judgment is affirmed.
Bill Warren also appeals from the judgment dismissing the third party defendants Will Austin Nailling, Buck Kirk, J.R. Moran, and Paul Rice. That appeal is primarily based upon: (1) The trial judge inadequately charged T.C.A. §§ 47-2-313, 47-2-315, relating to express and implied warranty; (2) The trial judge erred in his failure to charge strict liability in tort as pled.
There is no material evidence of an express warranty on the part of anyone. The trial judge did accurately and fully charge the law on express warranty, but the evidence does not justify the charge. Had a verdict been rendered for the defendant Warren on his third party complaint, we would, at the insistence of the third party defendants, have a serious question as to the propriety of a charge on the law of express warranty. The defendant Warren as the third party plaintiff has no ground for complaint to the charge as given on express warranty.
The trial judge charged the law of implied warranty fully and completely over 4 1/2 pages of the typed charge as given. This charge was fair, understandable and sufficient. The defendant Warren as third party plaintiff has no ground for reversal based upon a claim that the trial judge "erred in failing to give a full and complete charge as to the effect of Section ... 47-2-315, Tennessee Code Annotated."
Our Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine of strict liability in tort. Ford *945 Motor Company v. Lonon (1966), 217 Tenn. 400, 398 S.W.2d 240; Olney v. Beaman Bottling Company (1967), 220 Tenn. 459, 418 S.W.2d 430. Basically, strict liability is imposed upon one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property. We first consider this theory of recovery by the third party plaintiff Warren as applicable to the third party defendant Nailling, the seller of the lumber used in the construction of the two top rows of seats added to the bleachers.
Under the proof, reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion, namely, the grade lumber used in the construction of the two top rows of seats in the bleachers was not suited for that purpose. The question, however, is whether the seller Nailling is to be held strictly liable for the injuries resulting from the use of this lumber as seats on the bleachers. There is no material evidence that Nailling knew the lumber purchased in the name of Warren was to be used for the construction of an additional two top rows of seats. There is no proof that Nailling recommended the grade lumber used; and, the proof is inadequate to establish who ordered the lumber, and what grade lumber was ordered. Under the record we must conclude the grade lumber ordered was delivered. The record reveals there are several grades of lumber, and the higher the grade the greater the cost. From the record we can conclude that higher grade lumber may be committed to certain uses to which a lower grade could not be safely employed. The record establishes the lumber purchased was of a lower and inferior grade, and was used for a purpose in which only a higher grade could be safely employed.
The doctrine of strict liability in tort should not be extended to those situations where the customer purchases an inferior grade of a certain product and then puts that product to a use to which only a higher grade of the same product is suited. To so hold would license customers and consumers to absolutely disregard the consequences of their acts. Under the facts, we hold the trial judge correctly refused to charge the law of strict liability in tort as to the third party defendant Nailling.
Regardless of the relationship between the third party plaintiff Warren and the third party defendants Kirk, Moran and Rice, the proof establishes the named third party defendants were not sellers of the lumber used in the two top rows of bleacher seats, and they were not engaged in the business of selling such a product. Under Restatement of Torts, Second, § 402A, strict liability in tort is so limited. We therefore hold the doctrine of strict liability in tort not applicable to those third party defendants. See and compare: Freitas v. Twin City Fisherman's Cooperative Association[1] (Tex.Civ.App. 1970), 452 S.W.2d 931; Katz v. Slade (Mo. 1970), 460 S.W.2d 608. The trial judge correctly refused to charge the law of strict liability in tort as to the third party defendants Kirk, Moran and Rice.
It results all assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The cost of this appeal is adjudged against the appellant.
CARNEY, P.J., and NEARN, J., concur.
NOTES
[1]  Shepard's Southwestern Reporter Citations shows this decision by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals "RNRE  Application for writ of error refused, no reversible error."


444 Pa. 397 (1971)
Commonwealth
v.
Malone, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued May 4, 1971.
October 12, 1971.
Before BELL, C.J., EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.
*398 Mary Alice Duffy, for appellant.
Mark Sendrow, Assistant District Attorney, with him Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorney, James D. Crawford, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN, October 12, 1971:
On November 20, 1956, the court below accepted a general plea of guilty on behalf of Julian Malone to an indictment charging him with murder. After an evidentiary hearing, Malone was found guilty by the court of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. No appeal was then filed, but on March 9, 1970, after a hearing sur a petition seeking post-conviction relief, the trial court permitted this direct appeal to be filed as if the same were timely filed.
The first assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at the hearing to adjudicate the degree of guilt to sustain a finding of murder in the first degree. As we have stated many times, the test to be applied in determining the sufficiency of the evidence, is whether, accepting as true all of the evidence, be it direct or circumstantial, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom upon which, if believed, the trier of facts could properly have based the verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted. Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 440 Pa. 143, 269 A. 2d 886 (1970), and Commonwealth v. Commander, 436 Pa. 532, 260 A. 2d 773 (1970). The evidence in this case meets this test.
*399 From the testimony, the trial court was warranted in finding the following facts:
Malone, the appellant, and Samuel Broodus engaged in a verbal argument over the payment of an alleged debt, while seated in Broodus' automobile parked on a street in Philadelphia. Following this dispute, Malone left the Broodus vehicle and sat for a short period in a second automobile parked nearby. He then walked to the residence of a friend, situated about two and one-half blocks away, secured a rifle and some ammunition, loaded the gun with ammunition and returned to where the Broodus automobile was parked. When Broodus refused his demand to pay the debt Malone said he owed, Malone, without more, used the rifle to shoot Broodus in the chest. The bullet pierced the heart causing instant death.
On the foregoing facts, the trial court was fully justified in entering an adjudication of guilt of murder in the first degree. Cf. Commonwealth v. Schnur, 440 Pa. 132, 269 A. 2d 691 (1970), and Commonwealth v. Iacobino, 319 Pa. 65, 178 A. 823 (1935).
It is next urged that the guilty plea should be declared invalid and of no effect because: (1) it was entered by trial counsel, rather than Malone personally; and (2) in any event it was not an intelligent and knowing plea by Malone.
The plea proceedings record discloses that it was counsel who informed the court that Malone was pleading guilty to the indictment, and unfortunately the trial court did not question Malone personally as to his knowledge of the plea or its consequences. However, the plea was entered in Malone's presence and without the slightest indication of any objection on his part. Also, with Malone present, eight witnesses testified for the Commonwealth during the hearing immediately following the entry of the plea, including three eyewitnesses who stated that Malone shot Broodus without *400 any immediate provocation. Additionally, Malone never attacked the validity of his plea until after more than twelve years had elapsed. And finally, Malone's self-retained trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that before the plea was entered he had many conferences with Malone during which he explained to him the possible consequences, if a guilty plea were entered, or if Malone decided to plead not guilty, and after considering all facets of the case Malone decided the best course to pursue was to plead guilty.
On this record, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the court below in refusing to declare Malone's guilty plea invalid. Cf. Commonwealth v. McBride, 440 Pa. 81, 269 A. 2d 737 (1970).
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice JONES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


341 B.R. 581 (2006)
In re John Michael CHERRY; aka John M Cherry; aka Mike Cherry, Debtor.
No. 05-44629.
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
May 10, 2006.
*582 *583 Michael J. Durrschmidt, Hirsch and Westheimer, Houston, TX, for Debtor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARVIN ISGUR, Bankruptcy Judge.
The parties dispute whether objections to Mr. Cherry's exemptions were filed timely. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the objections were timely and denies Mr. Cherry's motion for preemptive dismissal.

Background
On September 9, 2005, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under chapter 7. On October 12, 2005, a Rule 2004 examination of the Debtor was conducted. At the examination, Lowell T. Cage ("Trustee") informed the parties present that there would be insufficient time to conclude matters at the initial creditor's meeting and that the meeting would be continued. On October 20, 2005, the Trustee convened the meeting of creditors, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341(a). At this meeting, the Trustee announced that the meeting would be continued to a date and time in January 2006. On November 18, 2005, the Trustee filed notice on the docket in this case that the meeting of creditors would reconvene on January 10, 2006. On November 23, 2005, the Trustee served the Debtor and all the creditors with notice of the date and time of the continued creditor's meeting. In late December *584 and early January, discussions were held concerning the potential need to reschedule the January 10 meeting due to a contested hearing in a separate case that required the presence of various counsel, including the Trustee and the Debtor's counsel, Michael Durrschmidt. The meeting did not reconvene on January 10, 2006.
On January 18, 2006, a docket entry reflects the Trustee's notice of the continued meeting of creditors scheduled for January 31, 2006.[1] The meeting was held as scheduled. In attendance were the Debtor, the Trustee, Durrschmidt, Timothy Wentworth (the Trustee's counsel), Marilee Madan (a creditor's counsel) and Robin Blanchette (Joyce Cherry's counsel). Upon completion of the January 31, 2006 meeting, the Trustee announced that the meeting of creditors was concluded.[2]
On February 8, 2006,[3] the Debtor filed amended Schedules B and C, and the Trustee filed an objection to the Debtor's exemptions. The Trustee argues that two annuities were established by payments made in fraud of creditors and requests the Court disallow the Debtor's claim of the annuities as exempt. In his response, the Debtor contends, among other defenses, that the Trustee's objection is untimely since the multiple adjournments of the meeting of creditors were not in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e).
On February 28, 2006, Joyce Cherry and the Bristol Parties[4] filed an objection to the Debtor's homestead exemption.
The two annuities were claimed on the Debtor's initial schedules as exempt. The homestead was claimed on the Debtor's amended Schedule C, filed on October 28, 2005, as exempt. The exemption claims regarding the annuities and the homestead were not affected by the February 8, 2006 amendments.
On March 1, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the Trustee's objection to the Debtor's exemptions. The Bristol Parties and Joyce Cherry were present. The Court afforded the parties an opportunity to file briefs on the issue of whether the objections were timely and continued the hearing until March 29, 2006. Upon conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Court took the motions under advisement.

Discussion
When the Debtor filed bankruptcy, all of his property became part of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541. However, bankruptcy law allows a debtor to claim certain property as exempt. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). Property that is allowed as exempt is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate. Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 642, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992).
In order to claim an exemption, a debtor must file a list of property that the debtor *585 claims as exempt under § 522(b). 11 U.S.C. § 522(l). Absent objections by a party in interest, the property claimed as exempt is exempt. Id. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(b) sets forth the time for objecting to a debtor's exemption. Rule 4003(b) provides, in relevant part:
A party in interest may file an objection to the list of property claimed as exempt within 30 days after the meeting of creditors held under § 341(a) is concluded or within 30 days after any amendment to the list or supplemental schedules is filed, whichever is later. The court may, for cause, extend the time for filing objections if, before the time to object expires, a party in interest files a request for an extension.
FED. R. BANKR.P. 4003(b).
Section 341(a) provides that "[w]ithin a reasonable time after the order for relief in a case under this title, the United States trustee shall convene and preside at a meeting of creditors." 11 U.S.C. 341(a). Rule 2003 governs the commencement and continuance of the meeting. Rule 2003(e) provides that "[t]he meeting may be adjourned from time to time by announcement at the meeting of the adjourned date and time without further written notice." FED. R. BANKR.P. 2003(e). This rule permits the trustee to adjourn and continue a meeting of creditors at a later date. However, no statute or rule establishes a specific manner in which the meeting of creditors is to be concluded.
Various courts have considered whether Rule 2003(e) states the exclusive means to adjourn or continue a § 341 meeting. The majority of courts addressing the issue conclude that Rule 2003(e) does not limit the Trustee to adjournments only if a specific date and time are announced at the conclusion of the meeting. See, e.g., In re Clark, 262 B.R. 508, 514 (9th Cir. BAP 2001). The natural meaning of the language indicates that if the date and time of the continued meeting are announced at a meeting, no written notice of the adjournment is required. In re Havanec, 175 B.R. 920, 922 (Bankr. N.D.Ohio 1994). This Court agrees.
If a trustee fails to announce on the record at a meeting of creditors a specific date on which the meeting will continue, the meeting does not automatically conclude. After the meeting adjourns, a trustee may continue the meeting by written notice. This practice may be appropriate when the debtor fails to appear at the initial meeting or when the debtor's financial affairs are complex and require further investigation or review before the trustee is able to determine whether further examination of the debtor is required.
Although courts generally agree that a trustee may not indefinitely continue a meeting of creditors, different approaches have been taken to determine what action is necessary to conclude a meeting of creditors when the meeting is continued to an unspecified date. The first approach utilizes a "bright line rule" to determine whether a trustee's announcement regarding a continued meeting is made within a reasonable time after a meeting adjourns. See, e.g., In re Levitt, 137 B.R. 881, 883 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992). This approach considers the policy behind the 30-day objection period set forth in Rule 4003(b), which requires that a debtor's exemptions become final without delay. Based on this policy, courts have held that a trustee must announce the adjourned date and time of a meeting of creditors within 30 days of the last meeting held. In re Smith, 235 F.3d 472, 476 (9th Cir.2000) ("Under any reasonable construction of the rule, a delayed announcement *586 would have to be made at least within thirty days of the last meeting held; otherwise, the whole purpose of Rule 4003(b) would be frustrated"); In re Levitt, 137 B.R. at 883 ("where the trustee fails to announce an adjourned date and time within thirty days of the date on which the meeting of creditors was last held, the meeting will be deemed to have concluded on the last meeting date").
A second approach considers the timeliness of a trustee's objection on a case-by-case basis. Here, courts consider the facts and circumstances of a particular case to determine whether the filing of an objection to the debtor's claim of exemptions is timely and reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., In re James, 260 B.R. 368, 372 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.2001) (trustee's conduct unreasonable when trustee indefinitely continued meeting and filed an objection to exemptions eleven months after last meeting); In re Brown, 221 B.R. 902, 905 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1998) (trustee acted reasonably, despite failure to reconvene the § 341 meeting, when he filed a report concluding the meeting of creditors less than four months after the initial meeting). Such an approach affords the trustee discretion in complex or unique cases but still constrains the trustee's ability to continue or postpone a meeting of creditors by what is reasonable and necessary to timely move a particular case forward in the bankruptcy process.
A final approach places the burden on the debtor to move for the conclusion of the § 341(a) meeting of creditors if the trustee fails to timely conclude the meeting. In re Flynn, 200 B.R. 481, 484 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996); In re DiGregorio, 187 B.R. 273, 276 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1995) ("Since the debtor has the greatest interest in concluding the meeting so as to trigger the 30-day objection period, [it is] appropriate to place the burden on the debtor to move for a court order concluding the § 341 meeting"); see also In re Koss, 319 B.R. 317, 321 (Bankr.D.Mass. 2005).[5] Under this approach, the meeting is concluded either when the trustee so declares or when the court, upon the debtor's motion, finds that the adjournment is "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion." In re DiGregorio, 187 B.R. at 276.
Neither the Fifth Circuit nor any court in the Southern District of Texas has addressed the issue.[6] The Debtor encourages the Court to adopt a strict bright line rule. He argues that Rule 2003(e) provides the sole means to continue a § 341 meeting and requires that a trustee announce the date and time of a continued *587 meeting at the conclusion of the initial § 341 meeting. If the trustee fails to announce a specific date for the continued meeting, the Debtor argues that the meeting is concluded as of the initial meeting date so that the 30-day objection period under Rule 4003 commences.
This Court is persuaded that a case-by-case approach is most appropriate. Such an approach affords a trustee discretion[7] in complicated cases yet restrains a trustee's ability to indefinitely postpone a meeting of creditors. Under this construction of the rule, a trustee may continue the § 341(a) examination only while there are legitimate grounds for believing that further investigation will prove beneficial or when the circumstances surrounding a case require the meeting be continued. See, e.g., In re Bernard, 40 F.3d 1028, 1031 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994). A case-by-case approach supports the policy of protecting debtors from indefinitely adjourned creditors' meetings yet affords the trustee time to thoroughly review a debtor's financial affairs to best administer the bankruptcy case.
By adopting this approach, the Court refuses to impose a strict 30-day time period where Congress declined to impose a per se deadline when it adopted § 341. A strict rule could impede justice in complex cases when a trustee needs further time and information to fully understand a debtor's financial affairs, especially when the debtor agrees to a continuance or refuses to cooperate, and where no evidence of unjustified delay is present. Placing the burden on the debtor to obtain a court order in every case is also unreasonable.[8] Although anecdotal, there are reports that trustees in some areas of the country routinely continue § 341 meetings solely for the purpose of extending various deadlines under the Code and the Rules. See, e.g., In re Vance, 120 B.R. 181 (Bankr. N.D.Okla.1990). Such conduct is intolerable and could lead a court to conclude that the meeting was  in fact  concluded at the end of the initial meeting of creditors. Only a case-by-case analysis places the burden fairly on the trustee and leaves sufficient flexibility to allow meetings to be continued in appropriate circumstances.
Application to Cherry
Applying the case-by-case analysis in this case, the Court must consider whether the Trustee acted reasonably when he continued the 341(a) meeting until "some time" after January 1, 2006, and sent official notice of the date and time of the continued meeting 33 days after the initial meeting adjourned.
The evidence shows that the Trustee announced his concerns regarding the complexity of the case and the need to continue the Debtor's § 341 meeting prior to commencing the meeting. It is undisputed that a Rule 2004 examination of the Debtor was conducted on October 12, 2005. The examination lasted from approximately 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. with 3,752 documents produced. The Trustee informed the parties present that there would be insufficient time at the initial meeting of creditors scheduled for October 20, 2005, to complete the § 341 meeting so that it would be necessary to continue the meeting.
*588 On October 20, 2005, the Debtor's meeting was one of 75 creditors' meetings scheduled that day. The Trustee convened the meeting at 10:55 a.m. At the meeting, the following occurred (in relevant part):
Trustee: Now you previously had your 2004 exam scheduled by one of the creditors in this case.
Debtor: That's correct.
Trustee: And I attended part of that examination. As I understand it, it was basically continued to a future date?
Durrschmidt: I think it was concluded.
Trustee: You did provide certain documentation at that time.
Debtor: Yes I did.
Trustee: And I think that the attorneys conducting it didn't, hadn't reviewed most of that documentation prior to the exam and I think they indicated some desire to proceed again after they had an opportunity to look at the documents. At least that's my understanding, and I haven't even looked at any of that, the documentation at this point, although they have agreed to provide it to me, and as I told you at that time, it's my intent today to simply continue this 341 meeting and convene again after those creditors and I have had a chance to review the documents and then we will notice you through your attorney and we will find a convenient day for all of us to sit down and do this again, or maybe continue the 2004 [examination] but let's just do it in the context of the 341 meeting. I think we will have a more meaningful meeting after we get a chance to look at those documents they have and we will [] invite you as well, give you notice. If you have some questions today, feel free to ask them. There is just so much to get into in this case, we didn't really have time to do it today, so that's the way we all agreed to proceed so you can come to that and participate in that. I think it will be more meaningful then. We are going to get copies of the documents on a disk and I can provide them to you, the whole thing, if you will give me your card I will do so. You might also drop, send me a letter again reminding me that you want to come to the 341 and I'll try to keep up with that.
Durrschmidt: Do you want to give me a card too?
Trustee: We will, because of all the chapter 7s that are being filed and all the creditors meetings we are going to be doing in the next couple of months, it may be sometime after the first of the year before we reconvene this. I can't imagine being able to fit it in anytime. So, I won't forget about it, but it will be probably sometime after then. Ok? So I'm just going to continue the 341 meeting. Thank you.
It is clear that the Trustee did not intend to continue the meeting indefinitely. The Trustee had 75 meetings scheduled on October 20, with an average of six minutes available for each meeting. This is the Trustee's standard practice for scheduling § 341 meetings. However, the Trustee considered the Debtor's case to be a complex chapter 7 case and determined that it was appropriate to schedule the Debtor's § 341 meeting independently when the necessary time could be devoted to the Debtor's case. Based on these facts and his previous experience, the Trustee exercised his discretion and adjourned the meeting to a future date.
Because the Trustee needed to hold more than 700 creditors' meetings before the end of 2005, and because the Debtor's counsel was going to be out of town toward *589 the end of the year, the Trustee announced that the meeting would be rescheduled for a date after January 1, 2006. Neither the Debtor nor the Debtor's attorney voiced any concerns or objected to the Trustee's decision to adjourn until sometime in January 2006. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Trustee's decision to continue the meeting was clearly announced, reasonable and not intended to delay the bankruptcy process. Accordingly, the 30-day objection period under Rule 4003 did not start to run upon the conclusion of the initial meeting.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Court also finds that the Trustee announced the specific date of the adjourned meeting within a reasonable time. The evidence shows that the Trustee continued to take action in the case and notify the Debtor and other parties of the status of the continued meeting. On October 25, 2005, a docket entry was entered in the case reflecting that the meeting was continued until November 3, 2005. On October 26, 2005, the Trustee contacted Durrschmidt, Madan, and Blanchette to inform them that the docket entry was incorrect since it had automatically been rescheduled by the Trustee's office. The Trustee informed them that the meeting would be reset for some time in January since it could not be set for a general day of meetings when the Trustee would hold approximately 75 other creditors' meetings. On October 28, 2005, the Trustee sent a letter to Blanchette informing her that the meeting was continued to sometime in January. That same day, the Trustee's office contacted Durrschmidt to question why the Debtor's house was not claimed as exempt and to address concerns regarding the Debtor's exemption of the annuities. On October 28, 2005, an amended Schedule C was filed by the Debtor, adding the Debtor's homestead to the list of exemptions. On November 17, 2005, the Trustee's office sent a letter to Durrschmidt, Millard Johnson, and Madan informing them that the § 341 meeting would reconvene on January 10, 2006. In the letter, the Trustee sought feedback from the parties concerning the proposed date.[9] No objections or concerns were raised by any of the parties.
On November 18, 2005, less than 30 days after the initial meeting adjourned, a docket entry reflects notice of the continued creditor's meeting scheduled for January 10, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. Official notice of the continued meeting was served on the Debtor and creditors on November 23, 2005. On December 28, 2005, the Trustee contacted Madan and Blanchette regarding the continued meeting and informed them that another continuance may be necessary since a contested hearing scheduled on January 10, 2006, before another judge involved the Trustee and the Debtor's attorney. A similar conversation occurred between the Trustee and Durrschmidt on January 3 and January 9. On January 10, the Trustee's staff notified Madan, Blanchette and Durrschmidt that the meeting would be reset since the hearing involving the Trustee and Durrschmidt was continued through January 11. On January 16, 2006, the Trustee contacted the parties regarding an appropriate date to reschedule the adjourned meeting and on January 17, 2006, the Trustee's office notified Durrschmidt, Madan and Blanchette that the meeting was rescheduled for January 31, 2006. A docket entry on January 18, 2006, reflects the rescheduled date. No objections or concerns regarding the rescheduling were raised by any party. On January 31, 2006, the meeting of creditors *590 reconvened, and upon the meeting's completion, the Trustee announced that the § 341 meeting was concluded.
Based on these facts, the Court finds that the Trustee acted in a manner consistent with the policy and goals of the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee determined that the Debtor's case was a complex chapter 7 case and continued the meeting to further investigate the Debtor's financial affairs. The Trustee announced the date of the adjourned meeting less than 30 days after the initial meeting and properly notified all parties and creditors of the adjournment 33 days after the meeting. The Trustee concluded the § 341 meeting within four months of the initial meeting and filed his objection to the Debtor's claimed exemptions on February 8, 2006, eight days after the conclusion of the § 341 meeting. On February 28, 2006, twenty-eight days after the conclusion of the § 341 meeting, Joyce Cherry filed an objection to the Debtor's homestead exemption. Accordingly, the Court finds that the objections were timely.
Waiver
Alternatively, the Court finds that the Debtor acquiesced in the decision to continue the meeting and effectively waived his right to challenge the Trustee's allegedly improper continuation of the meeting of creditors. Waiver involves the voluntary or intentional surrender of a known right. Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines, 174 F.3d 653, 660 (5th Cir.1999). Waiver may be established by showing that a party intentionally conducted himself inconsistent with claiming a right. Id. The time limits set forth in the Bankruptcy Rules for raising objections are generally subject to waiver.[10]See In re Kontrick, 295 F.3d 724, 733 (7th Cir. 2002) (Rule 4004(a) time limit is subject to waiver); In re Benedict, 90 F.3d 50, 54 (2d Cir.1996) (Rule 4007(c) time limit is subject to waiver); In re Santos, 112 B.R. 1001, 1008 (9th Cir. BAP 1990) (Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c) are subject to waiver).
Here, the Debtor knew that his § 341 meeting was being continued until a date approximately three months after the initial meeting. When asked if this continuation was acceptable, neither the Debtor nor Durrschmidt responded. Instead, the evidence indicates that the Debtor and Durrschmidt each gave the Trustee their contact information at the initial § 341 meeting so that the Trustee could forward a copy of the documents provided at the 2004 examination which he planned to review. On October 28, 2005, two days after the Trustee contacted Durrschmidt to inform him that the meeting would be reset for some time in January 2006, the Trustee's office contacted Durrschmidt to discuss his concerns regarding the Debtor's annuities. On at least two other occasions, the Trustee sought feedback from *591 Durrschmidt concerning the proposed date for the adjourned meeting and no objections were made. At the same time, the Debtor continued to cooperate with the Trustee and there is no evidence that the Debtor contested the Trustee's authority to continue the meeting. Finally, despite the Debtor's assertion that the meeting concluded on October 20, 2005, he appeared and cooperated at the reconvened meeting on January 31, 2006. This conduct indicates that the Debtor waived his right to object to the Trustee's continuation of his § 341 meeting. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Debtor effectively waived any right to object to the Trustee's ability to continue the meeting of creditors.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Trustee acted reasonably when he adjourned the Debtor's initial § 341 meeting. The § 341 meeting concluded on January 31, 2006. Accordingly, the objections to the Debtor's exemptions filed by the Trustee and Joyce Cherry and the Bristol Parties were timely.
NOTES
[1]  The Court's electronic filing system sent notice of this docket entry electronically to the Trustee, Michael Durrschmidt, Marilee Madan, Simon Hendershot, Timothy Wentworth and the United States Trustee.
[2]  A docket entry on February 28, 2006, states, in pertinent part: "Meeting of creditors held and concluded. Debtor appeared. Potential assets."
[3]  The parties stipulate that the Debtor filed his amended schedules on February 6, 2006. The docket in the case reflects that the amended schedules were filed on February 8, 2006.
[4]  The Bristol Parties include Stephen E. Jackson, Stephen J. Heyman, Bristol Aviation Services, Bristol Production Company, Bristol Resources Holdings, Inc., Bristol Resources Real Estate Holdings, Inc., American Central Gas Technologies Companies, Inc., and Stephens Investment Company.
[5]  The court in Koss held that a § 341 meeting is not concluded until the trustee declares the meeting concluded or the court so orders. In re Koss, 319 B.R. at 321. The court rejected the 30-day bright-line approach previously adopted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in In re Levitt, 137 B.R. 881 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992). In 2001, the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue. See In re DeCarolis, 259 B.R. 467, 470-71 (1st Cir. BAP 2001). The First Circuit rejected any bright line approach that places a "firm outer limit" on the trustee's ability to adjourn a meeting of creditors, but declined to adopt a specific approach. Id. (finding that under either the case-by-case analysis or a rule placing the burden on the debtor that the time to file an objection had not yet run).
[6]  The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas has considered the effect of a docket entry continuing the § 341 meeting filed after the trustee announced at the initial meeting that the meeting was concluded. See In re Friedheim, 336 B.R. 110, 112-13 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2005) (where trustee announced meeting was concluded on record but filed notice of continuance on docket, court held the § 341 meeting was continued and not concluded absent debtors' objection to the continuance).
[7]  Rule 2003(e) is permissive and not mandatory. FED. R. BANKR.PROC. 2003(e) ("The meeting may be adjourned from time to time . . . ")(emphasis added).
[8]  A debtor who feels that the continuance of his § 341 meeting is unjustified or unreasonable may file a motion seeking a determination that the meeting is concluded. However, the Court rejects an approach that requires the debtor to move for conclusion of the meeting of creditors in every case in which the trustee adjourns the meeting indefinitely.
[9]  The Trustee's office wrote: "Please let me know if this time is inconvenient. I would like to get notice out by next Tuesday, November 22."
[10]  Such a rule is consistent with policies promoted by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992) which requires that the deadline in Rule 4003(b) for objecting to a debtor's exemptions be construed strictly.

While the Court in Taylor did stress the importance of deadlines, we believe this emphasis supports our conclusion, rather than undermines it. As the [Taylor] Court noted, "[d]eadlines may lead to unwelcome results, but they prompt parties to act and promote finality." This analysis applies with equal force to the doctrine of waiver, which requires parties to put all of their arguments before the appropriate court at the appropriate time for a full resolution of their claims. Here, parties are prompted to action and finality is served by our conclusion that parties may waive any objection to the untimeliness of a creditor's complaint if the objection is not raised at the proper time.
In re Kontrick, 295 F.3d at 733 n. 4 (internal citations omitted).