Davis, In re
| Citation | 785 F.2d 926 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-8618,85-8618 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,070 In re David Larry DAVIS, Debtor. Charles A. GOWER, Trustee of Estate of David Larry Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, an agency of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Charles A. Gower, Columbus, Ga., Thomas J. Loftiss II, Thomasville, Ga., J. Patrick Ward, Cario, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Lillian H. Lockary, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before VANCE, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON *, Senior Circuit Judge, and LYNNE **, Senior District Judge.
This case concerns the bankruptcy of farmer David Larry Davis who in 1981 had borrowed $985,000 from the Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA) to finance his 1981 crop. Acting under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 544, the trustee in bankruptcy obtained a decision from the bankruptcy court requiring FmHA to return to the bankrupt's estate $282,847.39 plus interest and directing the trustee to turn over an additional $52,327.07 plus interest held in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation. The bankruptcy court found the money to be in part an illegal preference payment to FmHA under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547(b) and (c)(5). 1 It found FmHA's total claim subject to equitable subordination under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 510 because of FmHA's misconduct in obtaining the money. 2 The district court on review found that Davis had defrauded FmHA in obtaining the loan by giving false collateral and by using the proceeds of the 1981 loan to pay what remained on his 1980 loan. The district court entered a summary judgment dismissing the trustee's claim under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2514 as forfeited because tainted by the debtor's fraud. 3 The trustee appeals. We reverse.
The trustee in bankruptcy may "avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property ... that is voidable under applicable law by a creditor holding an unsecured claim...." 11 U.S.C. Sec. 544(b). The trustee acting under section 544 represents the creditors. American National Bank v. MortgageAmerica Corp., 714 F.2d 1266, 1275 (5th Cir.1983); see also Deel Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Levine, 721 F.2d 750, 756-57 (11th Cir.1983). Since the trustee's claims are for the benefit of the creditors, the fraud of the bankrupt does not require them to be forfeited. Podell & Podell v. Feldman (In re Leasing Consultants Inc.), 592 F.2d 103, 110-11 (2d Cir.1979).
Even if the claim had been the bankrupt's own, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2514 cannot serve as the ground for forfeiture. Section 2514 applies to actions in the United States Claims Court. This case was in the bankruptcy court and the district court. The district court found section 2514 applicable under concurrent jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(a)(2). That section applies only to claims under $10,000. 4 This claim is for many times that amount. Therefore, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 5
* See Rule 3(b), Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
** Honorable Seybourn H. Lynne, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
1 Section 547 in essence permits the trustee to avoid payments made by a debtor to one creditor at the expense of others within 90 days before the bankruptcy or, if the chosen creditor was an insider, within one year before the bankruptcy. The section protects all creditors from any unfair advantage granted by the debtor to any of their number.
2 Section 510 states in relevant part:
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, after notice and a hearing, the court may--
(1) under principles of equitable subordination, subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed claim to all or part of another allowed claim or all or part of an allowed interest to all or part of another allowed interest; or
(2) order that any lien securing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chase & Sanborn Corp.
...the bankrupt is not the burden of the trustee who acts for the estate's creditors or of the innocent creditors themselves. In re Davis, 785 F.2d 926 (11th Cir.1986). There is utterly no basis for prejudicing the Estate's creditors any further by shifting any more of the time-value of the pr......
-
Kipperman v. Onex Corp.
...was a knowing and willing participant to such conveyances").39 The court finds that the Eleventh Circuit's decisions in In re Davis, 785 F.2d 926 (11th Cir.1986) and its dicta in Edwards, 437 F.3d 1145, indicate that the Eleventh Circuit would follow the Third and Sixth Circuits and find th......
-
In re Bell & Beckwith
...349, 362 (Bankr.E.D. Tenn.1986) (trustee does not "stand in the shoes" of the debtor in an action to avoid a preference); In re Davis, 785 F.2d 926, 927 (11th Cir.1986), Matter of Intern. Gold Bullion Exchange, Inc., 60 B.R. 261, 264 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1986) (trustee's "strong arm" powers are n......
-
Davis, In re
...that because the Trustee's action was on behalf of the other creditors, the bankrupt debtor's fraud was irrelevant. In re Davis, 785 F.2d 926, 927 (11th Cir.1986). 2 On November 5, 1986, the district court, on remand, affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision of November 13, 1984. On Septemb......