Page 9 - John Hundley 2014
P. 9

Bankruptcy Law Roundup




               Sharp                                           Thinking








        No. 111                    Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C.                    March 2014

         Exempt Assets Can’t Be Surcharged Due To Debtor Misconduct

             A bankruptcy court may  not order that a debtor’s exempt assets be used to pay  administrative
        expenses incurred as a result of the debtor’s misconduct, the U.S. Supreme Court has held.

             In Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. __, 2014 WL 813702 (March 4, 2014), the bankruptcy court had found that
        the debtor had caused a fraudulent lien to be put against his home, giving the impression there was no
        non-exempt equity therein.  It also believed that the debtor had authored and forged court papers from the
        putative creditor contesting the trustee’s attempt to have the lien declared fraudulent.  The bankruptcy
        court determined it was appropriate to surcharge the entirety of the $75,000 California home exemption
        because of the expense which had been caused to the bankruptcy trustee.

             The Court ruled that the bankruptcy court’s surcharge was unauthorized because it “contravened a
        specific  provision  of  the  [Bankruptcy]  Code.”    It  reasoned  that  11  U.S.C.  §  522(b)(3)(A)  and  state  law
        incorporated  therein  gave  the  debtor  a  $75,000  exemption  in  the  home,  and  that  §  522(k)  said  the
        exemption was “not liable for payment of any administrative expense.”  The trustee’s attorney’s fees were
        an administrative expense, and ordering that they be paid from exempt assets thus violated § 522(k).

             Citing 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and prior case law, the court said a bankruptcy court has “statutory authority
        to ‘issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of’
        the  Bankruptcy  Code”  and  “may  also  possess  ‘inherent  power  .  .  .  to  sanction  “‘abusive  litigation
        practices”’”, but “in exercising those statutory and inherent powers, a bankruptcy court  may not
        contravene specific statutory provisions.”  “The Code’s meticulous – not to say mind-numbingly detailed –
        enumeration of exemptions and exceptions to those exemptions confirms that courts are not authorized to
        create additional exemptions,” it said.

                  Sanctions For False-Statement Counseling Affirmed


             Sanctions  may be awarded for counseling a  client to  make a  false  or incomplete statement in a
        bankruptcy filing even if the client ultimately does not do so, a U.S. District Court judge in Missouri has
        held.  The court said 11 U.S.C. § 562(a)(2) “is directed toward improper advice or counseling” and “the
        success of the bad counseling  would seem to be  a matter that at  most goes to punishment.  The
        misconduct is complete when it occurs, although a document filing is essential to the offense.”  In re Clink,
        497 B.R. 44 (W.D. Mo. 2013).

                  Bankruptcy Courts Must Implement Code As Written


             Bankruptcy courts must “implement the Bankruptcy Code as written, rather than make changes that
        they see as improvements,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has twice intoned already this year.

             In In re New Energy Corp., 739 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 2014), the court made the admonition in refusing
        to find that the Code permitted a prospective competitor at a bankruptcy sale to protest alleged collusion
        at that sale.  Then in In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 742 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2014), the court

        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
        Sharp  Thinking  is  an  occasional  newsletter  of  The  Sharp  Law  Firm,  P.C.  addressing  developments  in  the  law  which  may  be  of  interest.    Nothing  contained  in  Sharp
        Thinking  shall  be construed to create an  attorney-client relation  where  none previously  has  existed, nor  with respect  to  any  particular matter.  The perspectives  herein
        constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation.  To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
        advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.
   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14