Butner v. United States, 77-1410

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTEVENS
Citation59 L.Ed.2d 136,99 S.Ct. 914,440 U.S. 48
PartiesWilliam E. BUTNER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES et al
Docket NumberNo. 77-1410,77-1410
Decision Date21 February 1979
Syllabus

In Chapter XI arrangement proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act, petitioner acquired a second mortgage on certain North Carolina real estate to secure a $360,000 indebtedness but received no express security interest in the rents earned by the property. The bankruptcy judge thereafter appointed an agent to collect the rents and apply them to the payment of taxes, insurance, interest, and principal payments due on the first and second mortgages. The mortgagor was later adjudicated a bankrupt, at which time the first and second mortgages were in default, and the trustee was ordered to collect and retain all rents. The bankrupt's properties were ultimately sold to petitioner for $174,000, that price being paid by reduction of the estate's indebtedness to petitioner from $360,000 to $186,000. At the sale date the trustee had accumulated almost $163,000 in rents which petitioner unsuccessfully sought to have applied to the balance of the second mortgage indebtedness, the bankruptcy judge ruling that the $186,000 balance due petitioner should be treated as a general unsecured claim. The District Court reversed. Though recognizing that under North Carolina law a mortgagor is deemed the owner of the land subject to the mortgage and during his possession is entitled to rents and profits, even after default, the court viewed the agent's appointment during the arrangement proceedings as tantamount to the appointment of a receiver which satisfied the state-law requirement of a change of possession, giving the mortgagee an interest in the rents which no further action after the bankruptcy adjudication was required to preserve. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the disposition of the bankruptcy judge. The appellate court held that the bankruptcy adjudication had terminated the state-court receivership status arising out of the appointment of the agent to collect rents, and that because petitioner had made no request during the bankruptcy for a sequestration of rents or for the appointment of a receiver, petitioner had not taken the kind of action North Carolina law required to give a mortgagee a security interest in the rents collected after the bankruptcy adjudication. Held: Apart from certain special provisions, the Bankruptcy Act generally leaves the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt's estate to state law. The law of the State where the property is located accordingly governs a mortgagee's right to rents during bankruptcy, and a federal bankruptcy court should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that a mortgagee is afforded in federal bankruptcy court the same protection he would have under state law had no bankruptcy ensued. Though the general principle of the applicability of state law to determine property rights in a bankrupt's assets was applied by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals (and those courts properly did not follow the minority federal equity rule under which a mortgagee is afforded a secured interest in rents even if state law would not recognize any such interest until after foreclosure), those courts disagreed about the requirements of North Carolina law. However, that state-law issue as such will not be reviewed by this Court. Pp. 51-58.

566 F.2d 1207, affirmed.

J. Steven Brackett, Hickory, N.C., for petitioner.

Allan A. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent the United States.

Joe N. Cagle, Hickory, N.C., for respondents, Cagle et al.

Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a second mortgagee over the right to the rents collected during the period between the mortgagor's bankruptcy and the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property gave rise to the question we granted certiorari to decide. 436 U.S. 955, 98 S.Ct. 3067, 57 L.Ed.2d 1120. That question is whether the right to such rents is determined by a federal rule of equity or by the law of the State where the property is located.

On May 14, 1973, Golden Enterprises, Inc. (Golden), filed a petition for an arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bank- ruptcy Act. 11 U.S.C. §§ 701-799. In those proceedings, the bankruptcy judge approved a plan consolidating various liens on North Carolina real estate owned by Golden. As a result, petitioner acquired a second mortgage securing an indebtedness of $360,000.1 Petitioner did not, however, receive any express security interest in the rents earned by the property.

On April 18, 1974, the bankruptcy judge granted Golden's motion to appoint an agent to collect the rents and to apply them as directed by the court. The order of appointment provided that the money should be applied to tax obligations, payments on the first mortgage, fire insurance premiums, and interest and principal on the second mortgage. There is no dispute about the collections or payments made pursuant to that order.

The arrangement plan was never confirmed. On February 14, 1975, Golden was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. At that time both the first and second mortgages were in default. The trustee was ordered to collect and retain all rents "to the end that the same may be applied under this or different or further orders of [the bankruptcy] [c]ourt." App. 342a-343a.

After various alternatives were considered, and after the District Court refused to confirm a first sale, the properties were ultimately sold to petitioner on November 12, 1975, for $174,000. That price was paid by reducing the estate's indebtedness to petitioner from $360,000 to $186,000.

As of the date of sale, a fund of $162,971.32 had been accumulated by the trustee pursuant to the February 14 court order that he collect and retain all rents. On December 1 1975, petitioner filed a motion claiming a security interest in this fund and seeking to have it applied to the balance of the second mortgage indebtedness. The bankruptcy judge denied the motion, holding that the $186,000 balance due to petitioner should be treated as a general unsecured claim.

The District Court reversed. It recognized that under North Carolina law, a mortgagor is deemed the owner of the land subject to the mortgage and is entitled to rents and profits, even after default, so long as he retains possession. But the court viewed the appointment of an agent to collect rents during the arrangement proceedings as tantamount to the appointment of a receiver. This appointment, the court concluded, satisfied the state-law requirement of a change of possession giving the mortgagee an interest in the rents; no further action after the adjudication in bankruptcy was required to secure or preserve this interest.

The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the disposition of the bankruptcy judge. Golden Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 566 F.2d 1207. The court acknowledged that the agent appointed to collect rents before the bankruptcy was equivalent to a state-court receivership, but held that the adjudication terminated that relationship. Because petitioner had made no request during the bankruptcy for a sequestration of rents or for the appointment of a receiver, petitioner had not, in the court's view, taken the kind of action North Carolina law required to give the mortgagee a security interest in the rents collected after the bankruptcy adjudication. One judge dissented, adopting the position of the District Court. Id., at 1211.

I

We did not grant certiorari to decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied North Carolina law. Our concern is with the proper interpretation of the federal statutes governing the administration of bankrupt estates. Specifically, it is our purpose to resolve a conflict between the Third and Seventh Circuits on the one hand, and the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits on the other, concerning the proper approach to a dispute of this kind.

The courts in the latter group regard the question whether a security interest in property extends to rents and profits derived from the property as one that should be resolved by reference to state law.2 In a few States, sometimes referred to as "title States," the mortgagee is automatically entitled to possession of the property, and to a secured interest in the rents.3 In most States, the mortgagee's right to rents is dependent upon his taking actual or constructive possession of the property by means of a foreclosure, the appointment of a receiver for his benefit, or some similar legal proceeding.4 Because the applicable law varies from State to State, the results in federal bankruptcy proceedings will also vary under the approach taken by most of the Circuits.

The Third and Seventh Circuits have adopted a federal rule of equity that affords the mortgagee a secured interest in the rents even if state law would not recognize any such interest until after foreclosure.5 Those courts reason that since the bankruptcy court has the power to deprive the mortgagee of his state-law remedy, equity requires that the right to rents not be dependent on state-court action that may be precluded by federal law.6 Under this approach, no affirmative steps are required by the mortgagee—in state or federal court—to acquire or maintain a right to the rents.

II

We agree with the majority view.

The constitutional authority of Congress to establish "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" 7 would clearly encompass a federal statute defining the mortgagee's interest in the rents and profits earned by property in a bankrupt estate. But Congress has not chosen to exercise its power to fashion any such rule. The Bankruptcy Act does include provisions invalidating certain security interests as fraudulent, or as improper preferences over general creditors.8 Apart from these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4379 cases
  • In re Williams, Case No. 06-32921-KRH (Bankr. E.D.Va. 7/19/2007), Case No. 06-32921-KRH.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • July 19, 2007
    ...the surrender of collateral. Rather it asserts that § 506 was applied only when collateral was retained. Citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979), Ford Motor Credit argues that Virginia law, which would preserve a deficiency claim upon the sale of the collateral, should be app......
  • In re Flanagan, Civil Action No. 3:06cv1472 (SRU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • March 31, 2009
    ...547). State law determines what property interests the debtor held at the time the bankruptcy case commenced. See Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 Titan does not dispute that Flanagan did not possess a legal interest in MJCC and its properties at the ti......
  • In re APC Const., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 89-00061
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court —District of Vermont
    • March 13, 1990
    ....... Bankruptcy No. 89-00061, Adv. No. 89-49A. . United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont. . March 13, 1990. 112 BR 90          J. Anderson, ... Butner" v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 917-18, 59 L.Ed.2d 136, 141-42 (1979). .   \xC2"......
  • In re Vermont Toy Works, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 85-252
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court —District of Vermont
    • December 23, 1987
    ...nature of a creditor's property rights in bankruptcy is defined by reference to state law. Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 917-18, 59 L.Ed.2d 136, 141-42 (1979): Property interests are created and defined by state law. Unless some federal interest requires a diffe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Subordination and Recharacterization
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • October 13, 2022
    ...The Fifth and Ninth Circuits, have found that, recharacterization is required in appropriate circumstances by Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54 (1979) when applicable non-bankruptcy law would characterize something that at first glance may look like a loan as a contribution to capita......
  • Oil and Gas Assets
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • September 20, 2022
    ...used in Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, is determined by referring to the applicable non-bankruptcy law, see Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979). The nature of the property right created by an oil and gas lease varies from state to state. In Texas and Pennsylvania, for example, ......
20 books & journal articles
  • The Alteration of Ex Ante Agreements by the Bankruptcy Code.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 No. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...Hon. Mary F. Walrath, David A. Skeel and David R. Kuney for their thoughtful comments to this paper. (1) Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (2) Id. (3) THOMAS H. JACKSON, THE LOGIC AND LIMITS OF BANKRUPTCY LAW 22 (Harvard Univ. Press, 1986) [hereinafter JACKSON, LOGIC AND LIMITS]. (4) Id.......
  • The Argument for a Federal Rule of Decision for a Bankruptcy Court's Recharacterisation of a Claim as Equity.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 94 No. 4, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...The author gratefully acknowledges Irina V. Fox, David A. Skeel, and Michael L. Temin for their thoughtful comments to this paper. (1) 440 U.S. 48 (1979). (2) In this article, the terms "Bankruptcy Code" and "Code" refer to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549, a......
  • Stern v. Marshall--Digging for Gold and Shaking the Foundation of Bankruptcy Courts (or Not)
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 72-3, April 2012
    • April 1, 2012
    ...lack jurisdiction to hear the Debtor’s claims against [the defendants]. 158 150. Id. at 120. 151. Id. (citing Stern and Butner v. U.S., 440 U.S. 48 (1979)). 152. Id. at 123. 153. Id. at 127–29. 154. 455 B.R. 94 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011). 155. Id. at 96. 156. Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. § 505(a)(1); 2......
  • The Last Dance: Righting the Supreme Court's Greatest Bankruptcy Apostasy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...note 64. It is almost surely also due to the overly broad interpretation that has been accorded to the holding in Burner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979) that property interests assigned under state law must be respected in bankruptcy. Id. at 55. A more limiting understanding of Burner ......
  • 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