Langenkamp v. Culp, 90-93
| Decision Date | 13 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-93,90-93 |
| Citation | 111 S.Ct. 330,112 L.Ed.2d 343,498 U.S. 42 |
| Parties | R. Dobie LANGENKAMP, Successor Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estates of Republic Trust & Savings Company and Republic Financial Corporation v. C.A. CULP, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 498 U.S. 1043, 111 S.Ct. 721.
This case presents the question whether creditors who submit a claim against a bankruptcy estate and are then sued by the trustee in bankruptcy to recover allegedly preferential monetary transfers are entitled to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. This action was brought by petitioner Langenkamp, successor trustee to Republic Trust & Savings Company and Republic Financial Corporation (collectively debtors). Debtors were uninsured, nonbank financial institutions doing business in Oklahoma. Debtors filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions on September 24, 1984. At the time of the bankruptcy filings, respondents held thrift and passbook savings certificates issued by debtors, which represented debtors' promise to repay moneys the respondents had invested.
Within the 90-day period immediately preceding debtors' Chapter 11 filing, respondents redeemed some, but not all, of debtors' certificates which they held. Thus, upon the bankruptcy filing, respondents became creditors of the now-bankrupt corporations. Respondents timely filed proofs of claim against the bankruptcy estates. Approximately one year after the bankruptcy filing, the trustee instituted adversary proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) to recover, as avoidable preferences, the payments which respondents had received immediately prior to the September 24 filing. A bench trial was held, and the Bankruptcy Court found that the money received by respondents did in fact constitute avoidable preferences. In re Republic Trust & Savings Co., No. 84C-01461, Adversary No. 85-0337 (N.D.Okla., June 26, 1987), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-45; In re Republic Trust & Savings Co., No. 84-01461, Adversary No. 85-0319 (N.D.Okla., June 26, 1987), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-64. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma affirmed. Republic Financial Corp. v. Langenkamp, Nos. 87-C-616-C, 87-C-618-C, 87-C-619-C (June 30, 1988), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-67. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the District Court's judgment on three grounds, but reversed on the issue of the holders' entitlement to a jury trial on the trustee's preference claims. In re Republic Trust & Savings Co., 897 F.2d 1041 (1990). Relying on our decisions in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989), and Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966), the Tenth Circuit correctly held that "those appellants that did not have or file claims against the debtors' estates undoubtedly [were] entitled to a jury trial on the issue whether the payments they received from the debtors within ninety days of the latter's bankruptcy constitute[d] avoidable preferences." 897 F.2d at 1046. The Court of Appeals went further, however, concluding:
Petitioner contends that the Tenth Circuit erred in holding that those creditors of the debtors who had filed claims against the estate were entitled to a jury trial. We agree.
In Granfinanciera we recognized that by filing a claim against a bankruptcy estate the creditor triggers the process of "allowance and disallowance of claims," thereby subjecting himself to the bankruptcy court's equitable power. 492 U.S., at 58-59, and n. 14, 109 S.Ct.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.)
...§ 502(d).18 Such actions are core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order. See Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 44, 111 S.Ct. 330, 112 L.Ed.2d 343 (1990) (“[B]y filing a claim against the bankruptcy estate the creditor triggers the process of ‘allowance and disallowa......
-
Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.), Case No. B-09-52606 C-7W
...11 U.S.C. § 502(d).18 Such actions are core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order. See Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 44 (1990) ("[B]y filing a claim against the bankruptcy estate the creditor triggers the process of 'allowance and disallowance of claims' . . . I......
-
United States v. Bond, 11 Civ. 5608 (BMC)
...the bankruptcy estate, it triggers the claims process and subjects itself to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. See Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 44, 111 S. Ct. 330 (1991). Thus, section 106(b) applies even when claims filed by the IRS are dismissed as untimely.c. Application of Sectio......
-
In re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.
...from the Bankruptcy Act to the Bankruptcy Code. Those principles were honed to a sharp distinction in Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 111 S.Ct. 330, 112 L.Ed.2d 343 (1990). In Langenkamp, the trustee sued creditors and non-creditors for the return of preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. ......
-
Did The Supreme Court Finally Explain Marathon And Stern?
...Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990) and Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011). Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Belli......
-
Stern v. Marshall: A Jurisdictional Game Changer?
...*24 (citing Northern Pipeline Constr. Co., 458 U.S. at 85). 44 Id. at *21. 45 Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966); Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 46 Stern, 2011 WL 2472792 at *20 (internal citations omitted). This fact has historically led to a concern by some courts over bankruptcy "jur......
-
'Stern v. Marshall' - Shaking Bankruptcy Jurisdiction To Its Core?
...because Pierce filed a proof of claim. The Court distinguished the cases of Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966), and Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990), and held that, unlike in those cases, Vickie's counterclaim did not arise from the bankruptcy itself and that it was not necessary t......
-
Stern v. Marshall--Digging for Gold and Shaking the Foundation of Bankruptcy Courts (or Not)
...relationship.’” 72 Because the 66. Id. 67. Id. at 2616 (citing to Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966); Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990)). 68. Id. 69. Id. (citing Katchen , 382 U.S. at 329–30, 332–33, n.9, 334). The statute at issue in Katchen was Bankruptcy Act, § 57(g)g, the predec......
-
The Needs of the Many: Equitable Mootness' Pernicious Effects.
...] part of the claims-allowance process" subject to resolution by the bankruptcy court. Stem, 564 U.S. at 497 (quoting Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 45 (1990) (per curiam)). The issue will arise not only in cases in which the estate seeks to increase its size through prosecution of avoidi......
-
Reframing Arbitration & Bankruptcy.
...concepts of summary and plenary jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898). (149) See Katchen, 382 U.S. at 336. In Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990), the Court relied on Katchen to rule that a creditor who had submitted a claim had no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. By sub......
-
Stern Claims and Article Iii Adjudication—the Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best?
...493.52. Id. at 494. 53. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. at 2172.54. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4).55. Granfinanciera, 492 U.S. at 43.56. Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990) (per curiam).57. Id. at 45.58. Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966).59. Id. at 329-30.60. Stern, 564 U.S. at 495-97.61. This is why ma......