Butcher, In re, No. 86-5850

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore KENNEDY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE; CORNELIA G. KENNEDY
Citation829 F.2d 596
Parties, 17 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1204, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 68, 16 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 821, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,989 In re C.H. BUTCHER, Jr., Debtor. James R. MARTIN, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOUISVILLE, Defendant-Appellee.
Decision Date23 September 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-5850

Page 596

829 F.2d 596
56 USLW 2193, 17 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d
1204, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 68,
16 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 821, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,989
In re C.H. BUTCHER, Jr., Debtor.
James R. MARTIN, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOUISVILLE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 86-5850.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued July 30, 1987.
Decided Sept. 23, 1987.

Page 597

Neal S. Melnick (argued), Weinberger, Weinstock, Sagner, Sagner, Stevan and Harris, Baltimore, Md., James R. Moore, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert W. Griffith (argued), Stites and Harbison, Louisville, Ky., Roy Kimberly Snell, for defendant-appellee.

Before KENNEDY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-trustee ("Trustee") appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint seeking to avoid preferential and fraudulent transfers to First National Bank of Louisville ("First National"). The Trustee was appointed on August 17, 1983, and the complaint was filed on August 19, 1985. The District Court granted First National's motion to dismiss, concluding that the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 546(a). We affirm.

On June 24, 1983, an involuntary bankruptcy petition seeking relief under Chapter 7, Title 11, was filed against C.H. Butcher, Jr. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. 1 The Trustee commenced a proceeding against First National on August 19, 1985, seeking to avoid preferential transfers to First National under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547(b) (1982) and fraudulent transfers to First National under 11 U.S.C. Secs. 544(b) and 548(a) (1982). In response, First National filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, which provides:

An action or proceeding under section 544, 545, 547, 548, or 553 of this title may not be commenced after the earlier of--

(1) two years after the appointment of a trustee under section 702, 1104, 1163, or 1302 of this title; and

(2) the time the case is closed or dismissed.

11 U.S.C. Sec. 546(a) (1982).

The bankruptcy court denied First National's motion. It determined that Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) 2 applied to the computation

Page 598

of the statute of limitations period because the application of Rule 9006(a) to the two-year period did not enlarge the Trustee's substantive rights. 3 Accordingly, the court did not include the day of the Trustee's appointment in the computation of the two-year period, which placed the end of the period on Saturday, August 17, 1985. The court also found that Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) extended the limitations period to the end of the next business day since the two-year period expired on a Saturday. Thus, the court concluded that the action was timely filed and denied First National's motion to dismiss, 57 B.R. 101. The District Court granted First National's motion for leave to immediately appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).

The District Court reversed, relying on this Court's decision in Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir.1980). The Rust Court construed the statute of limitations applicable to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1601-1693r (1982 & Supp. III 1985). Plaintiff in Rust entered into an installment sale agreement with Quality Car on July 1, 1976. Quality Car assigned its interest in the contract to defendant Provident Bank. On July 1, 1977, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendants' extension of credit to finance the transaction had violated several provisions of the Truth in Lending Act. Defendants moved to dismiss arguing that plaintiff's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which provides in pertinent part:

Any action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.

15 U.S.C. Sec. 1640(e) (1982) (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserted that the July 1, 1977 filing was timely because the statute of limitations did not begin to run until July 2, 1976, the day after the transaction. In support of his position, plaintiff contended that the "one year" period in section 1640(e) should be computed by applying Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that the day of the act, event or default shall not be included in computing the time in which an action must be commenced. 4

This Court disagreed, and concluded that nothing in the Truth in Lending Act supported plaintiff's position that the Court should construe the term "one year" in the Truth in Lending Act with reference to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). The Court reasoned,

[t]he Truth in Lending Act creates a cause of action and confers jurisdiction on federal courts to hear cases arising under the statute. That jurisdiction is defined and cicumscribed by the Act itself, in a temporal as well as a substantive sense. If a complaint is not filed within the time period prescribed by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1640(e), a federal court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.

614 F.2d at 1119. The Court also reasoned that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) does not change the premise that a complaint must be filed within the time prescribed by section 1640(e) in order for the court to have jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that Fed.R.Civ.P. 82 demonstrates that the Rules of Civil Procedure are to govern procedural matters once an action is properly before a court. Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiff had one year beginning on the date of the transaction to file his complaint;

Page 599

the last day of that year was June 30, 1977. 614 F.2d at 1119-20.

The Trustee argued to the District Court that the Rust case was distinguishable because the statute in question in Rust is both a statute of limitations and a jurisdictional grant, whereas section 546(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is procedural only. Nevertheless, the court believed that this Court in Rust did not base its conclusion on whether the creation of the limitations period and the jurisdictional grant occur in the same paragraph or numerical section of the statute. Rather, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • Pugh, In re, No. 96-3790
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1998
    ...States Dep't of Labor, 62 F.3d 163, 166 n. 1 (6th Cir.1995) (en banc) (citing Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher ), 829 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir.1987); Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118, 1119 (6th Cir.1980)); cf. Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. ......
  • U.S. v. Hitachi America, Ltd., Slip Op. 97-46.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 15, 1997
    ..."[a]n action may not be commenced after ..." a certain time period create a jurisdictional bar to bringing suit. See, e.g., In re Butcher, 829 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1078, 108 S.Ct. 1058, 98 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1988); In re Barley, 130 B.R. 66, 69 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.199......
  • Gordon v. Webster (In re Webster), Case No. 18-62322-JWC
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 31, 2021
    ...prevent Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) from operating to roll-over the deadline. See Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher) , 829 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987) (analogizing § 546 to similar provision in Truth in Lending Act and holding § 546 acted as jurisdictional bar that cannot be ......
  • In re Outboard Marine Corp., Bankruptcy No. 00-B-37405.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 11, 2003
    ...that § 546(a) may be jurisdictional and thus not waivable by the parties); Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher), 829 F.2d 596 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1078, 108 S.Ct. 1058, 98 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1988); DiCello v. United States (In re Ry. Reorganization Estate, I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • Pugh, In re, No. 96-3790
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1998
    ...States Dep't of Labor, 62 F.3d 163, 166 n. 1 (6th Cir.1995) (en banc) (citing Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher ), 829 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir.1987); Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118, 1119 (6th Cir.1980)); cf. Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. ......
  • U.S. v. Hitachi America, Ltd., Slip Op. 97-46.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 15, 1997
    ..."[a]n action may not be commenced after ..." a certain time period create a jurisdictional bar to bringing suit. See, e.g., In re Butcher, 829 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1078, 108 S.Ct. 1058, 98 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1988); In re Barley, 130 B.R. 66, 69 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.199......
  • Gordon v. Webster (In re Webster), Case No. 18-62322-JWC
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 31, 2021
    ...prevent Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) from operating to roll-over the deadline. See Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher) , 829 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987) (analogizing § 546 to similar provision in Truth in Lending Act and holding § 546 acted as jurisdictional bar that cannot be ......
  • In re Outboard Marine Corp., Bankruptcy No. 00-B-37405.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 11, 2003
    ...that § 546(a) may be jurisdictional and thus not waivable by the parties); Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher), 829 F.2d 596 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1078, 108 S.Ct. 1058, 98 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1988); DiCello v. United States (In re Ry. Reorganization Estate, I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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