Debtor's Duties

by on

The 9th Circuit Holds A Homestead Exemption Is Limited to Statutory Cap in a Chapter 11 to 7 Conversion

The Ninth Circuit held that the failure to object to a claimed homestead exemption within the 30-day period does not allow the debtor to exempt more than the statutory limit when the case originated as a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and included conflicting representations regarding the exemptions.

Facts

Monte and Rosana Masingale filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2015, claiming a homestead exemption of “100% of FMV” (fair market value) for their residence. No party in interest objected within the 30-day window. The case was later converted to Chapter 7, and the Masingales sought to sell the home and retain all proceeds, despite the statutory cap on the homestead exemption.

Analysis

The court’s legal analysis focused on whether the initial lack of objection to the homestead exemption claim allowed the Masingales to exempt more than the statutory limit. The court distinguished this case from Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz and Schwab v. Reilly, which involved different circumstances and did not originate in Chapter 11.

The court noted that the Masingales, as Chapter 11 debtors-in-possession, owed fiduciary duties to their creditors. During the Chapter 11 proceedings, they made representations in their Disclosure Statement and Chapter 11 Plan that they were not claiming above-limit exemptions or that such exemptions would only be allowed after creditors were fully paid. These representations indicated that the homestead exemption would be limited to the statutory cap, contrary to their Schedule C notation of “100% of FMV.”

The court reasoned that these conflicting representations within the 30-day objection period affected whether the “100% of FMV” notation created a clear and objectionable exemption. The court emphasized that the fiduciary duties and specific statements made in Chapter 11 documents provided context that negated the need for an early objection based solely on the Schedule C notation. Therefore, the initial failure to object did not permit the Masingales to claim an exemption above the statutory limit.

Tips

  1. Clarify Exemption Claims: Ensure that exemption claims are clear and consistent across all bankruptcy documents to avoid disputes and objections.
  2. Understand Fiduciary Duties: Recognize that debtors-in-possession in Chapter 11 have fiduciary duties to creditors, and their representations can impact exemption claims.
  3. Timely Objections: While objections to facially invalid exemptions should be timely, consider the entire context and any additional representations made by the debtor within the objection period.

NCBRC filed an amicus brief in support of the Debtors and provided a moot court to Debtors’ counsel to prepare for oral arguments.

Masingale 9th Circuit Opinion

NACBA-NCBRC Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee

by on

The 6th Circuit To Determine Whether the Debtors’ Post-Petition Application of Their Tax Refund to Future Tax Liabilities is Per Se Intent to Hinder a Trustee Justifying a Denial of Discharge

The Sixth Circuit in Wylie v Miller is reviewing the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s decision, holding that the bankruptcy court erred in applying a per se rule that the debtors’ post-petition application of their tax overpayment to future tax liabilities constituted an intent to hinder the trustee.

Facts

Jason and Leah Wylie filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and were denied discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) by the bankruptcy court. The denial was based on the Wylies’ post-petition election to apply a $20,736 tax overpayment from their 2019 tax return to their 2020 tax liabilities, which the bankruptcy court interpreted as an intent to hinder the trustee.

Analysis

The court’s analysis centered on the bankruptcy court’s application of a per se rule regarding the debtors’ intent. The bankruptcy court found that the Wylies’ election to apply their 2019 tax overpayment to their 2020 tax liabilities was sufficient to establish an intent to hinder the trustee. This conclusion was drawn without direct evidence of the Wylies’ intent but rather inferred from the action itself, effectively applying a per se rule that such an action always constitutes intent to hinder.

The court found this application problematic because it did not consider the specific circumstances or the debtors’ actual intent. The court highlighted that intent to hinder, delay, or defraud must be supported by concrete evidence and not merely inferred from the action of applying tax overpayments. The Wylies had consistently made similar elections pre-petition, which the bankruptcy court had previously found were made without intent to hinder, delay, or defraud. The court emphasized that exceptions to discharge must be narrowly construed, and a broad per se rule undermines this principle by potentially denying a fresh start without sufficient evidence.

The court also noted that the bankruptcy court failed to account for the Wylies’ testimony, which consistently stated that their intent was to ensure payment of future tax liabilities, not to hinder the trustee. The bankruptcy court’s failure to distinguish between intent to prefer one creditor over another and intent to hinder the trustee further weakened its position. Therefore, the application of a per se rule was inappropriate, and the court reversed the decision, remanding for entry of a discharge.

NCBRC and NACBA filed an amicus brief in support of the Debtor/Appellee.

Wylie v Miller – Amici Brief

by on

The Ninth Circuit Reviews Whether an Exemption of “100% of FMV” Protects the Entire Value of the Property Including any Post-Petition Appreciation

UPDATE: The Ninth Circuit has since decided this case. Click here to read our article discussing their ruling.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether an exemption of “100% of FMV” protects all the equity in the property, over and above the allowable exemption, and any appreciation in value post-petition.  The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court and found that an exemption claim of “100% of FMV” included the entire value of the property, not the allowable exemption. Further, the court held that this exemption claim included any post-petition appreciation because there was no objection to the exemption.  Masingale v. Munding, 644 B.R. 530 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2022).  The BAP held:

“Monte L. Masingale and Rosana D. Masingale filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and claimed a “100% of FMV [fair market value]” exemption in their homestead. No one objected. Years later, the bankruptcy court converted the case to chapter 7. Mrs. Masingale and the chapter 7 trustee disputed the amount of the homestead exemption to which Mrs. Masingale was entitled: the chapter 7 trustee argued that she was bound by the statutory limit under § 522(d)(1), but Mrs. Masingale contended that she was entitled to the entire fair market value of the property, because no one had objected to the claimed homestead exemption. The bankruptcy court agreed with the chapter 7 trustee and approved his request to sell the property, limiting the homestead exemption to $45,950.

“Mrs. Masingale appeals, arguing that the bankruptcy court erred in determining the amount of the homestead exemption. We agree with Mrs. Masingale. We REVERSE the portions of the order on appeal that determine the amount of the homestead exemption and REMAND. We publish to explain the effect of a “100% of FMV” exemption claim and to reiterate that parties must timely object to any improper exemption claim, no matter how frivolous. …

“As a matter of first impression, we hold that the Masingales’ claim of an exemption equal to “100% of FMV” includes postpetition appreciation and becomes incontestable if there is no timely objection. The snapshot rule is one of the limits on a debtor’s entitlement to exemptions. Taylor holds that, if no one objects, the debtor can get the benefit of exemptions to which the debtor is not entitled. In other words, in order to get the benefit of the snapshot rule, a trustee or party in interest must object to an exemption claim that contradicts that rule.”

The case is tentatively set for oral argument in early December 2023.

Appellant Trustee Munding Brief

Appellee Masingale Brief

NCBRC Amicus Brief In Support of Appellee – Masingale

Appellant Trustee Munding Reply Brief

by on

Debtor Misled Lender as to Discharge of Debt

The debtor’s own conduct gave the lender reason to believe that the debt owed to him was not discharged, so the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that the lender’s continued collection efforts lacked the requisite scienter to support a contempt sanction for violation of the discharge injunction. Bernhard v. Kull (In re Bernhard), No. 22-854 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2023).

When his business began to suffer financially, the debtor borrowed $60,000 from a childhood friend. He made sporadic efforts to pay the debt, but at one point he told the lender he might have to file for bankruptcy. He assured the lender that if he did file, he would not include the debt in his bankruptcy. When the debtor finally did file for chapter 7 bankruptcy, he did not list the debt in his schedules, inform the trustee or the court of the debt, or inform the lender of the bankruptcy. The lender therefore didn’t learn of the bankruptcy until the debtor received his discharge. Over a year after discharge, the debtor executed a new promissory note to the lender and made more payments on the debt.

At some point, however, the lender grew impatient with the slow progress on repayment and filed suit in state court. The debtor returned to the bankruptcy court and filed an adversary proceeding against the lender and his attorneys seeking a finding of contempt for violation of the discharge injunction. The bankruptcy court found that the debt had been discharged and that the defendants violated the discharge injunction. But the court declined to hold the defendants in contempt finding that they lacked the requisite scienter.

The only issues raised in the debtor’s appeal to the district court related to the bankruptcy court’s findings that 1) the lenders had no notice of the bankruptcy case until it was too late to seek a finding that the debt was nondischargeable, 2) that the defendants lacked the requisite scienter to justify a contempt order, and 3) that the debtor was not entitled to any relief other than a declaration that the debt was discharged.

The court set out the requirements for establishing contempt for a discharge violation: “(1) a discharge order has been entered (discharging the applicable debt); (2) the creditor had notice of the discharge order; (3) collection efforts continued regardless; and (4) there is no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct might be lawful under the discharge order.”

Here the court took into consideration the long-term friendship between the parties, the debtor’s efforts to repay the loan including executing a post-discharge promissory note and making payments, and the debtor’s failure to tell the lender that he had filed for bankruptcy. The court found no error in the bankruptcy court’s finding that the defendants were unaware of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing until it was too late to file objections. In addition, the court found that the debtor indicated through word and action that he intended to repay the debt even after he received his discharge. All of these things gave the lender a reasonable basis to believe that the debt was not discharged and that he was within his rights to pursue repayment.

The court thus concluded that the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding no basis for a contempt order against the defendants, nor did it err in finding that the only relief to which the debtor was entitled was an order declaring the $60,000 debt discharged.

The debtor has filed an appeal to the Third Circuit, case no. 23-1358.

Bernhard ED Pa Feb 2023

by on

No Harm in Failure to Disclose

The debtor was entitled to reopen her bankruptcy case to disclose a post-confirmation, pre-discharge lawsuit where she successfully completed her 100% plan so there was no harm to creditors by her failure to timely disclose the lawsuit, and the debtor would benefit from the opportunity to comply with Eleventh Circuit disclosure requirements. In re Calixto, No. 17-18317 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2023).

Approximately one year before the end of her chapter 13 plan, the debtor slipped and fell on property owned by Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. One month after she successfully completed her plan and received her discharge, she sued Gulfstream in state court for negligence. Gulfstream moved for summary judgment arguing that the debtor was judicially estopped from pursuing the case because she failed to disclose the lawsuit to the bankruptcy court. The debtor moved to reopen her bankruptcy in order to disclose the claim.

The court began with sections 541 under which a lawsuit is property of a chapter 13 bankruptcy estate, and 1306(a)(1) which incorporates property acquired by the debtor post-confirmation into the bankruptcy estate. It noted that while the Code does not obligate debtors to make ongoing post-confirmation disclosures when they acquire new property, Eleventh Circuit precedent has established that debtors have a continuing duty to disclose a post-confirmation litigation claim.

Having found that the litigation was property of the estate and that the debtor had a duty to disclose it and failed to do so, the court went on to consider the equities of allowing her to reopen her bankruptcy to do so now. It weighed the benefits of reopening against prejudice to any of the parties.

While the court noted that it views nondisclosure with a jaundiced eye, in this case, the debtor’s schedules were accurate when she filed them and when her case was confirmed. Furthermore, all her creditors were paid the full amount of their claims so none were prejudiced by the debtor’s failure to disclose the lawsuit during her bankruptcy and none stood to benefit from the disclosure now. Nor was the trustee prejudiced by the failure to disclose because the debtor retained her right to personally pursue the litigation while her bankruptcy case was pending. Thus, “even if the Debtor had previously disclosed the litigation claim – or if the Court permits her to reopen her case now to disclose it – it would not have, and will not have, any effect on her bankruptcy estate or her creditors.”

On the other hand, by reopening, the debtor stood to benefit from the opportunity to satisfy the procedural technicality established by the Eleventh Circuit and pursue her rights against Gulfstream in state court.

The court found that requiring Gulfstream to address the merits of the debtor’s case in state court did not constitute prejudice.

The court granted the debtor’s motion to reopen.

Calixto Bankr SD Fla Jan 2023

by on

Good Faith in Failure to Disclose Lawsuit

Where the debtor failed to amend her schedules before her case was closed, she forfeited the right to do so as a matter of course, but based on the facts and circumstances in this case, the debtor’s neglect was excusable. The court allowed her to reopen her case to claim an exemption in a personal injury settlement. In re Wantz, No. 18-2851 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2023).

Prior to filing her chapter 7 petition, the debtor contacted a personal injury attorney who was representing other women suing the manufacturer of an implanted medical device to explore the possibility of filing a lawsuit. The attorney told the debtor via email that because she had not had the device removed, she would be unlikely to prevail in a lawsuit. When she filed for bankruptcy, the debtor did not disclose this potential cause of action in her bankruptcy. Shortly before receiving her discharge, she signed an Attorney Employment Contract with the personal injury attorney. That agreement stated only that the attorney would investigate her potential claim.

She received her discharge in October, 2018, and her case was closed in November, 2018. In 2020, the debtor received two emails from her personal injury attorney suggesting, but not directly stating, that a case had been filed on her behalf. In March, 2021, the debtor sought medical advice with respect to the device and, upon learning that it was the cause of her pain, had it removed. Her medical expenses were $7,000. At around the same time, the debtor learned that her personal injury case had settled and that she would net $6,500.

Three weeks later, the debtor moved to reopen her bankruptcy to add the settlement to her schedules and claim it as exempt. The trustee objected to the exemption arguing that it was untimely.

Rule 1009(a) provides that a debtor may amend a bankruptcy schedule as a matter of course any time before the case is closed. The question here was whether that automatic right to amend is reignited when a closed case is reopened. The debtor lobbied for the court to find that once a case is reopened the debtor’s right to amend her schedules is “as a matter of course,” as it would be under Rule 1009(a) and that any other conclusion would violate the holding in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014).

The court found the debtor’s interpretation of that case was overbroad. Law prohibited a court from surcharging a debtor’s exemptions based on equitable considerations and in contravention of Code provisions. Law did not deal with timeliness of an amendment to the schedule of exemptions. The court here found that because Rule 1009(a) specifically applies to a debtor’s right to amend prior to her case being closed, the obverse is not true. A debtor may not amend her schedules as a matter of course after the case is closed even if it is later reopened.

The court turned next to the impact of Rule 9006, which provides that, with certain specified exceptions, a court may extend a deadline after that deadline has expired upon a showing of excusable neglect. The debtor argued that Rule 9006 was inapplicable because that rule applies only when the act in question “is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified period by these rules.” The debtor argued that because the time for amending schedules is not circumscribed by a specific period but is tied to the non-specific point at which the case is closed, amendments are not subject to Rule 9006’s requirement of a finding of excusable neglect.

The court disagreed with the debtor and with the cases, such as Mendoza v. Montoya (In re Mendoza), 595 B.R. 849 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2019), supporting her position. It found that Rule 1009(a)’s requirement that an amendment be filed before the case is closed is sufficiently specific to bring it under the auspices of Rule 9006.

The court turned to whether the debtor had shown excusable neglect, finding that the inquiry was equitable in nature and involved consideration of all relevant circumstances.

The court agreed with the trustee that the debtor’s failure to disclose the lawsuit during her bankruptcy deprived the trustee of the opportunity to litigate the claim for the benefit of the estate. But the court found that prejudice to the trustee and creditors was not significant in light of the fact that the debtor could have claimed an exemption under 522(c) for the settlement at any time during her bankruptcy. The court was unwilling to agree that the trustee would likely have obtained a better outcome from the litigation had she been involved.

As to the length of the delay—three years between filing her petition and reopening her case—the court found the debtor was unaware of several salient facts that would have alerted her to the necessity of disclosing the claim. First, the debtor did not know the cause of her pain was due to the device; second she did not know her attorney had moved past the investigation stage and filed a claim on her behalf; and third, the debtor lacked the sophistication to untangle the conflicting information she had received from her personal injury lawyer. The court noted that the debtor’s personal injury case involved many plaintiffs and that the debtor did not have a relationship with her attorney, but dealt with him from a distance. The court concluded that the debtor acted in good faith.

With the final observation that the debtor’s ultimate recovery did not even meet her medical bills based on the injury, the court found the debtor was entitled to amend her schedules to claim the exemption.

Wantz Bankr. WD Mich Jan 2023