Posted by NCBRC - April 13th, 2017
Application of section 505(a)(2)(B), which carves out an exception to the government’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in tax refund claims, involved issues of both fact and law, and therefore, the district court remanded this appeal to the bankruptcy court for determination of whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over the debtors’ claim for turnover of their tax refund. United States v. Copley, No. 3:16-cv-207 (E.D. Va. March 31, 2017).
Chapter 7 debtors, Matthew and Jolinda Copley, listed the United States as a creditor for a tax debt of over $13,000 from 2008, 2009, and 2010. They also listed a 2013 tax refund in the amount of over $3,000 which they sought to exempt under Virginia’s homestead exemption statute. Post-petition, the IRS notified the Copleys that it had withheld their 2013 tax refund as set off against the tax debt. The Copleys sought turnover of the refund and both parties moved for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted judgment in favor of the Copleys, relying on sections 522 and 542(a) and case law establishing that, unless the IRS acts to offset the tax debt prior to bankruptcy, the refund becomes part of the bankruptcy estate. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 7th, 2016
Where the debtor had not suffered any injury from her hip replacement until post-discharge, the claim against the medical device provider was not property of the bankruptcy estate even though the hip replacement took place pre-petition. Sikirica v. Harber (In re Harber), 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2168, No. 14-20155 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. May 31, 2016).
Elizabeth Harber underwent two hip replacement surgeries using implants produced by DePuy Orthopaedics. Three years later, she received notice that some of the implants were problematic and she was listed among the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against DePuy. Three years later, the she and her husband, Brent Harber, filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. They listed the lawsuit in their schedules as a contingent, unliquidated claim with a value of $0. At that time, Ms. Harber had suffered no injury as a result of the implants. The Harbers’ bankruptcy case was closed with the potential claim against DePuy excepted from abandonment. Ms. Harber then discovered that metal had entered her bloodstream due to the implants and she was advised to have the hip replacement revised. Nonetheless, Ms. Harber dismissed her civil suit without prejudice as a “non-revised” plaintiff. She had the hip revision shortly thereafter. The Harbers’ bankruptcy attorney informed the court of a potential civil case against DePuy. The bankruptcy case was reopened and the trustee filed a turnover motion seeking to require the Harbers to contribute any settlement they might receive to the bankruptcy estate. The Harbers objected arguing that any settlement would not be property of the estate because Ms. Harber did not suffer any injury until after the bankruptcy case was closed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 11th, 2014
In an unfortunate decision, the Ninth Circuit held that current possession is not necessary to turnover of funds in a checking account. Shapiro v. Henson (In re Henson), No. 11-16019 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - December 30th, 2013
In a sharply circumscribed opinion, the Tenth Circuit found that the trustee could avoid in their entirety charitable contributions in excess of 15% of the debtors’ gross annual income. Wadsworth v. The Word of Life Christian Center (In re McGough), No. 12-1142 (Dec. 16, 2013). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 6th, 2013
This case centered on whether rent collected by the debtors becomes part of the bankruptcy estate even though the right to collect the rents had been absolutely assigned to their lender PHH Mortgage (“PHH” or “assignee”). Relying on In re Jason Realty, 59 F.3d 423 (3d Cir. 1995), the bankruptcy court found that PHH, as assignee, was the owner of the right to collect rents and, therefore, the debtor had no ownership interest to augment the bankruptcy estate. The district court affirmed. In re Cordova, No. 13-810 (D. N.J. Oct. 22, 2013). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 13th, 2013
The Second Circuit upheld sanctions against vehicle loan creditor, SEFCU, for refusing to return debtor’s repossessed vehicle without a court order and adequate protection. Weber v. SEFCU, No. 12-1632 (May 8, 2013). SEFCU had lawfully repossessed the debtor’s pick-up truck pursuant to the loan agreement but when the debtor filed for bankruptcy SEFCU refused to return the vehicle. The bankruptcy court determined that SEFCU’s actions did not violate the automatic stay. The district court reversed. Weber v. SEFCU, 477 B.R. 308, 311 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - December 17th, 2012
NACBA has filed an amicus brief in the case of In re Henson, No. 11-16019 (9th Cir.), seeking a finding by the Ninth Circuit that the trustee may not use his turnover power under section 542 to require a debtor to pay into the estate funds that are no longer in the debtor’s possession. In this case, the debtor had written a check prior to bankruptcy which was not cashed until after the bankruptcy filing. Instead of using his avoidance power under section 549 to recover the funds from the payee, the trustee sought to obtain the money from the debtor, thereby exposing the debtor to double payment and allowing the payee to receive more than he would have been entitled to through bankruptcy distribution. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - September 11th, 2012
NACBA has filed an amicus brief on the issue of whether a creditor must return collateral that was repossessed prior to bankruptcy once the creditor learns of the bankruptcy filing. Weber v. SEFCU, No. 12-1632 (2d Cir.). NACBA argues that section 542(a) imposes an affirmative duty on a creditor in possession of collateral to turn it over to the bankruptcy estate and that failure to do so is an unlawful “exercise of control over the property” and a violation of the automatic stay under section 362(a) meriting sanctions.
Thanks to Ray DiGuiseppe for writing NACBA’s brief.
Weber NACBA amicus
Posted by NCBRC - May 1st, 2012
The District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that the trustee had the power under section 724(b) to require turnover of debtor’s 2002 Lincoln LS for the purpose of selling it to pay a substantial portion of the tax debt even though the tax lienholder had not sought relief from stay for that purpose. Sheehan v. Posin, No. 11-160 (N.D. W.Va., April 23, 2012). In reversing the decision of the bankruptcy court, the district court relied on the plain language of section 724(b) concluding that the trustee’s power to require turnover under section 542 for sale of property securing a tax lien was not contingent upon the lienholder taking the affirmative step of seeking relief from stay.
Posin opinion
Posted by NCBRC - April 2nd, 2012
The BAP for the Ninth Circuit found that a pre-petition tax refund which was obtained and spent by chapter 13 debtor post-petition but prior to confirmation of chapter 13 plan, was not subject to turnover upon conversion to chapter 7. Warfield v. Salazar (In re Salazar), No. 11-1551 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. March 14, 2012), The court found that the case turned on interpretation of section 348(f)(1)(A) which provides that upon conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 the estate consists of property in the possession or control of debtor at the date of conversion. Noting that section 348(f)(1)(A) creates an anomaly whereby a debtor who remains in chapter 13 would have had to have included the refund in the plan, and a debtor who had filed originally in chapter 7 would have been required to turn over the refund, the court found that the plain language of that section pinpoints the date of conversion as the relevant point. Applying rules of statutory construction, the court found that this result was not absurd and that, in the absence of bad faith, the debtors therefore were not required to turn over the tax refund.
Salazar opinion
