X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In May 2003, the debtor, Gregory Neal Dorsey, and his wife borrowed $3,000 from Friendly Finance Service (FFS), payable in 36 monthly installments of $154.93. The collateral described in the security agreement consisted of a 1997 motorcycle, two shotguns, one pistol, a television, a VCR and a riding lawnmower. On June 18, 2004, Dorsey and his wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The Chapter 13 plan, dated June 17, 2004, listed FFS’ claim as a secured claim and provided for 54 monthly payments of $82. The plan provided further that the debtors “shall pay to the Trustee any income tax refunds,” less earned income credit, for tax years 2004-2006. The motorcycle pledged as part of the collateral for the FFS loan was not listed in the schedule of personal property in the debtors’ Chapter 13 schedules. On Oct. 28, 2005, the debtors moved to modify their Chapter 13 plan to provide for the surrender of the motorcycle to FFS in full satisfaction of the debt owed to FFS, and the surrender of a 2000 Chrysler automobile to Regions Bank in full satisfaction of their debt to that lender. The bankruptcy court confirmed the modified plan on Dec. 9, 2005. The order confirming the modified plan reiterated the requirement that the debtors tender to the trustee any tax refunds for tax years 2004-2006, less earned income credit. On Jan. 17, 2006, the debtors moved to convert their Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted the motion to convert on Jan. 20, 2006. The Chapter 7 schedules filed by the debtors on Jan. 19, 2006, listed FFS as an unsecured creditor with a nonpriority claim of $3,554 for a “signature loan.” The motorcycle was not listed as an asset on the new schedule of personal property, but the schedule did list the car. FFS was the only creditor present at the first meeting of creditors following the conversion to Chapter 7. At that meeting, on March 13, 2006, FFS’ counsel asked the debtor if he still had the motorcycle, and the debtor said that he did. When asked about the three guns pledged as collateral to FFS, the debtor testified that he no longer had the Winchester 12-gauge single-barrel shotgun, and that it was his father’s gun; that the 1912 Edison shotgun was his grandfather’s gun; and that he still had the .32 automatic pistol. He testified that he no longer had the television set and the riding lawnmower but that he still had the VCR. The debtor testified that he got a $3,600 tax refund for the 2004 tax year and paid some bills with it. He testified that he had received a $5,000 tax refund for the 2005 tax year and used it to pay bills, buy clothes for his children and repair a truck. On May 18, 2006, FFS filed an adversary complaint. FFS alleged that because the debtor did not own the shotguns given as collateral, the Dorseys obtained the loan by fraud and false pretenses and thus could not discharge their debts under 11 U.S.C. �523. FFS also alleged that the debtors should be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. �727, because their failure to turn over to the trustee the $5,000 tax refund they received in 2006 for tax year 2005, as required by their Chapter 13 plan, and their representation, under oath, in their Chapter 7 schedules, that they had no contingent and unliquidated claims, including tax refunds, amounted to false oaths, transferring or concealing assets with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, failure to obey a lawful order of the court, and failure to explain their loss of assets to meet liabilities. In a ruling from the bench, the bankruptcy court began by rejecting FFS’ claim of nondischargeability under �523 on the ground that the debtor did not give a financial statement in connection with any loan application. Next, the bankruptcy court held that FFS had no standing to object to dischargeability under �523 or discharge under �727, because the confirmation of the modified Chapter 13 plan, pursuant to which the debtor was to surrender the motorcycle to FFS in full satisfaction of the debt, was binding as to both the debtor and FFS. The court stated that at the time the case was converted to a case under Chapter 7, FFS had no debt and no claim against the debtor, secured, unsecured or otherwise. The bankruptcy court found that, assuming FFS had standing, the debtor did not intend to deceive FFS with respect to the guns pledged as collateral. Finally, the bankruptcy court found that FFS’ complaint was abusive, because FFS lacked standing to file the complaint inasmuch as it had no claim against the debtor as a result of the order confirming the modified plan. The court observed that FFS’ counsel made little, if any, effort to review the bankruptcy court record and that the complaint “is only another in a chain of abusive complaints filed by this lender.” The court noted that it had repeatedly cautioned FFS and its counsel about deficiencies in its pleadings. Based on those findings, the court enjoined FFS from filing any complaints objecting to discharge or dischargeability in Chapter 7 cases in the Monroe and Alexandria Divisions of the Western District of Louisiana without prior leave of court. FFS appealed, and the district court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. Construing FFS’ objection to dischargeability as one under �523(a)(2)(B), the district court affirmed on the grounds that: 1. the debtor did not present a written statement about his financial condition; and 2. the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the debtor did not intend to deceive FFS about the guns pledged as collateral for the loan. The district court held that the bankruptcy court had implicitly found that the debtor did not knowingly and fraudulently conceal the tax refund. It therefore affirmed the denial of FFS’ objection to discharge under 11 U.S.C. � 727. The district court affirmed the injunction requiring FFS to obtain bankruptcy court approval before filing complaints objecting to discharge and dischargeability. FFS timely appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. The bankruptcy court, the court noted, held that FFS lacked standing to file a complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability based on the confirmation of the debtor’s modified Chapter 13 plan, in which the debtor was to surrender the motorcycle to FFS in full satisfaction of his debt. The bankruptcy court held that, when the case was converted to a Chapter 7 case after the modified Chapter 13 plan was approved, FFS had no debt and no claim against the debtors. The court noted that on March 13, 2006, at the first meeting of creditors following the conversion to a Chapter 7 case, the debtor testified that he still had the motorcycle. Thus, the debtor failed to fulfill his obligation under the modified Chapter 13 plan to surrender the motorcycle to FFS. Furthermore, the debtor freely abandoned the Chapter 13 plan when he converted the case to one under Chapter 7. Moreover, the debtor acknowledged owing a debt to FFS in the Chapter 7 schedules, which listed FFS as an unsecured creditor holding a claim of $3,554. Under these circumstances, the court found that it would be inequitable to bind FFS to the terms of the modified Chapter 13 plan. It therefore followed that the bankruptcy court erred by holding that FFS lacked standing to file an adversary complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability. FFS, the court stated, argued that the bankruptcy court erred in rejecting its claim under 11 U.S.C. �523, because the debtor’s grant of a security interest in a gun that the debtor did not own was false pretenses founded on a false statement in writing for purposes of �523(a)(2)(A) and (B). Section 523(a)(2)(A) provides that a debt is nondischargeable if it is “for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,” to the extent that it was “obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” Section 523(a)(2)(B) provides that a debt is non-dischargeable to the extent that it is obtained by the use of a written statement “(i) that is materially false; (ii) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition; (iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such . . . credit reasonably relied; and (iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with the intent to deceive.” Although the debtor’s testimony with respect to the guns at the creditors’ meeting was inconsistent with his testimony at trial, the court could not say with firm conviction that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that the debtor did not intend to deceive FFS with respect to the guns. The court therefore concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying FFS’ objection to dischargeability of the debt under �523(a)(2). The court also found that the debtor’s failure to turn over the tax refund to the Chapter 13 trustee did not support a denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. �727. As for the bankruptcy court’s injunction prohibiting FFS from filing future complaints objecting to discharge or dischargeability without prior court approval, the court vacated the injunction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the bankruptcy court for reconsideration of the propriety of its injunction in the light of the court’s opinion. OPINION:Per curiam; Jolly, Dennis and Prado, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.