Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.)

Citation467 B.R. 337,56 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 71
Decision Date27 March 2012
Docket NumberBankruptcy No. B–09–52606 C–7W.Adversary Nos. 11–6033,11–6034,11–6037.,11–6035,11–6036
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina
PartiesIn re SOUTHEASTERN MATERIALS, INC., PO Box 279 Albemarle, NC 28002–0279, Debtor.W. Joseph Burns, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Tony M. Dennis, Betty D. Lambert, Dennis–Lambert Investments Limited Partnership, Chris C. Lambert, Maria D. Dennis, Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Recognized as Unconstitutional

28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(2)(C)

Martha R. Sacrinty, Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan, P.A., David F. Meschan, Greensboro, NC, for Plaintiff.

R. Bradford Leggett, Winston–Salem, NC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS W. WALDREP, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

At issue in this adversary proceeding is whether the Court has authority to enter final judgment on the causes of action asserted in these adversary proceedings. On September 8, 2011, the Court entered an order instructing the parties to either file a written consent to the Court's authority to enter final judgment on the asserted claims, or file briefs outlining their respective positions as to whether and how the Supreme Court's ruling in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011), affects this Court's authority to enter final judgment.

The Court held a hearing in these matters on October 28, 2011, in Winston–Salem, North Carolina, at which time the Court took the matter under advisement. The facts in each of the cases are similar or are closely related; therefore, this Court will address all five cases together in this consolidated opinion and issue separate orders for entry in each case.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 30, 2009, Southeastern Materials, Inc. (the “Debtor”), a North Carolina corporation in the business of manufacturing trusses, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On June 2, 2010, W. Joseph Burns was appointed as the Chapter 11 trustee for the Debtor. On July 30, 2010, the case was converted to a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and Mr. Burns became the Chapter 7 trustee (the Trustee). On May 19, 2011, the Trustee filed five complaints commencing these adversary proceedings against Betty D. Lambert (Betty), Chris C. Lambert (Chris), Maria D. Dennis (Maria), Tony M. Dennis (Tony), and the Dennis–Lambert Investments Limited Partnership (“DLI” and together with Betty, Chris, Maria, and Tony, the Defendants). The Debtor is a closely-held corporation: Betty and Tony, the Secretary and President of the Debtor, are siblings. Chris, Betty's son, and Maria, Tony's daughter, are employed by the Debtor. Together, Betty and Tony own 98 percent of the Debtor. The remaining two percent is owned by Kay Dennis (Kay), Tony's spouse. Betty's husband, Charles A. Lambert (Charles), is also alleged to have participated in several of the business deals addressed by the Complaint, although he is not named as a defendant. The Trustee alleges that Betty, Tony, Charles, Kay, Maria, and Chris were insiders of the Debtor because they were and are officers or directors of the Debtor and/or relatives of officers and directors of the Debtor.

A. Transfers to Defendants

The Trustee alleges that from December 30, 2005 through December 29, 2009, the Debtor transferred $654,222 to Betty, $164,715 to Tony, $102,836 to Chris, and $183,715 to Maria, allegedly without consideration to the Debtor. Tony, Betty, and Chris filed proofs of claim. The Trustee seeks to disallow Betty's and Tony's claims but does not object to the claim filed by Chris. Neither Maria nor DLI filed a proof of claim.

The Debtor's financial statement ending January 31, 2008, contains a line-item entry for “Officers and Others” in the amount of $764,235. In a statement for the 2007 fiscal year, the same line item was $17,558, some $746,677 less than in 2008. The Trustee alleges that inasmuch as Betty and Tony were officers of the Debtor at the time that the receivables were generated and provided no consideration to the Debtor for the transfers, at least a portion of the $764,235 is still owed to the Debtor by Betty and Tony. Both Betty and Tony are further alleged to have transferred substantial sums—indeed, more than $703,017—from the Debtor to one another and to Maria, Chris, DLI, Custom Wood, and First Bank (one of the Debtor's largest creditors). Many of these transfers were excluded from the Debtor's Statement of Financial Affairs.

B. The Dennis–Lambert Investments Limited Partnership

The Debtor had significant dealings with other entities that are managed and owned by the Defendants, including DLI. Tony and at least one other Defendant formed DLI on October 18, 2000, for the purpose of acquiring and holding real estate investments. From DLI's formation until the Petition Date, the Debtor served as the general partner of DLI and owned a two percent interest. Tony, Betty, and unspecified members of their respective families own the remaining 98 percent as limited partners. From December 30, 2005, through December 29, 2009, a total of $459,056 was transferred by the Debtor to DLI.

According to the Trustee's Complaint, the Debtor added substantial value to DLI as the business's general partner by enabling DLI to obtain real estate acquisition loans that would otherwise have been unattainable. The Debtor's substantial revenue stream, in combination with its asset and customer base, made DLI an attractive borrower to banks and other lenders, who typically require a revenue-producing obligor. Specifically, the Trustee alleges that the Defendants exploited the Debtor's position in order to obtain property located at Highway 904 in Tabor City, North Carolina, where the Debtor's second manufacturing facility is located (the Tabor City Facility). On October 31, 2000, the Debtor, together with Tony, Kay, Charles, and Betty, executed a promissory note in favor of First Bank in the original principal amount of $800,000 (the October 2000 Note”). The Complaint alleges that although the Debtor never received any portion of the proceeds from the October 2000 Note and never owned any of the property at the Tabor City Facility (owned entirely by Tony, Kay, Charles, and Betty), the Debtor nevertheless paid substantially all of the payments on the October 2000 Note from its own funds. On February 14, 2002, the Defendants transferred the facility to DLI. The Complaint further alleges that the Debtor funded principal and interest payments on DLI acquisition loans other than the October 2000 Note for the purpose of acquiring real estate investments, but which served no legitimate purpose for the Debtor.

C. Custom Wood & Masonry Structures, Inc.

In addition to their involvement in the management of the Debtor, Betty and Tony founded and managed Custom Wood & Masonry Structures, Inc. (“Custom Wood”), a North Carolina corporation in the business of installing trusses. Chris is Vice President of Custom Wood; Maria is an employee. Betty, Tony, Chris, and Maria each own a 25 percent interest in Custom Wood. The purpose of Custom Wood was to purchase trusses and other wood products manufactured by the Debtor and install such products under turnkey framing contracts with third parties. The venture was apparently unsuccessful. The Trustee alleges that as far back as January 2008, Custom Wood had no significant assets of its own and a history of losing money. At the time of the Debtor's filing, Custom Wood had ceased operations and had no assets.

Custom Wood's accounts receivable and payable were created on the Debtor's books by the Debtor's outside accounting agency. These receivables and payables were adjusted at the end of each fiscal year to reflect the “book” amount owed by Custom Wood to the Debtor. According to the Debtor's records, Custom Wood borrowed substantially from the Debtor. The Trustee alleges that, by the petition date, the net receivable from Custom Wood to the Debtor was at least $938,752.

D. The Farm Affiliates

Betty and Tony are also general partners and equity owners of each of three North Carolina general partnerships: B & D Farms, St. Martin Farms, and Southeastern Farms (the “Farm Affiliates”). The activities of the Farm Affiliates and their relationship with the Debtor's timber business is unclear. The Debtor's financial statements reveal that the Farm Affiliates, like Custom Wood, borrowed substantial sums from the Debtor. The Debtor's internally prepared monthly financial statements disclose $1,019,565 owed by Farm Affiliates to the Debtor as of December 31, 2009. The Trustee alleges that this debt arose substantially, if not entirely, out of previous transfers by the Debtor of cash and/or other property of the Debtor to the Farm Affiliates, and that all of these transfers were without consideration. After having examined the prepetition books and records of the Debtor, the Trustee has found no record of any portion of any Farm Affiliate receivables having been repaid to the Debtor since January 31, 2008. The Trustee alleges that at least $1,019,565 remains due and owing.

E. Stanly Timber Products

More than 20 years before the Debtor filed bankruptcy, Betty's father, Silas Dennis, formed Stanly Timber Products, a North Carolina general partnership. At all times pertinent to this action, Stanly Timber was owned in whole or in part by Betty and Tony, as general partners, each of whom own at least a 20 percent partnership interest in the company. The Trustee alleges that Stanly Timber is an insider of the Debtor under Sections 101(31)(E), 101(2) and 101(9) of the Bankruptcy Code because it is an affiliate of the Debtor.

Stanly Timber is one of the Debtor's twenty largest creditors. Although Stanly Timber is owed $79,891, it did not file a proof of claim. The Trustee alleges that Stanly Timber's creditors were sometimes paid from the Debtor's funds. Specifically, the Trustee alleges that during the three years immediately preceding the Petition Date, the Debtor's practice of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Camac Fund, L.P. v. McPherson (In re McPherson)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Maryland
    • June 2, 2021
    ...as the claims asserted arise under bankruptcy statutes [e.g., sections 544, 547, 548, and 550 ]."); In re Se. Materials, Inc., 467 B.R. 337, 361 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2012) ("The claim satisfies the first prong of the Stern test because a claim for equitable subordination stems from Section 510(......
  • Olsen v. Reuter (In re Reuter)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Missouri
    • September 12, 2013
    ...that was payable to bearer, because, among other things, it affected claims allowance process); Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.), 467 B.R. 337, 357 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2012) (court had constitutional power to enter a final judgment in section 542 action against corporate offi......
  • Clean Burn Fuels, LLC v. Purdue Bioenergy, LLC (In re Clean Burn Fuels, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • May 16, 2013
    ...is not property of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate and enter final orders regarding the same.” Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.), 467 B.R. 337, 352–52 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2012) (citing In re BankUnited Fin. Corp., 462 B.R. 885, 893–94 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2011); In re Washington Mutu......
  • Moses v. CashCall, Inc., 14–1195.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • March 16, 2015
    ...person[ ] filing [a] claim[ ] against the estate.” See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) ; see also, e.g., Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.), 467 B.R. 337, 360 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2012) (holding that a cause of action seeking damages for a creditor's unfair or deceptive trade practices......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Analyzing The Post-'Stern' Landscape In New York
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 6, 2013
    ...2012); Shaia v. Taylor (In re Connelly), 476 B.R. 223, 231-34 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2012); Burns v. Dennis (In re Southeastern Materials), 467 B.R. 337, 357 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2012) (Waldrep, J.) (Southeastern Materials); In re Miller, 2011 WL 3741846, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Aug. 24, "Just as ban......
1 books & journal articles
  • Stern Claims and Article Iii Adjudication—the Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best?
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 35-1, March 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...re D & B. Swine Farms, Inc.), No. 09-02813, 2011 WL 6013218 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2011); Burns v. Dennis (In re Se. Materials, Inc.), 467 B.R. 337 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2012). But see Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In re Ortiz), 665 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011). 7. Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT