Cannon, In re, 84-1119
| Decision Date | 21 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1119,84-1119 |
| Citation | 741 F.2d 1139 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 69,978 In re William Anthony CANNON, Jane Cannon, Debtors. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel., John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Appellant, v. William Anthony CANNON, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Peter Lumaghi, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Leslie A. Davis, Clayton, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
This case is before us on appeal from the district court's 1 order upholding a bankruptcy judge's dismissal of a complaint filed by the State of Missouri challenging the dischargeability of a debt owed by William A. Cannon to eight individuals. Because we believe the state lacks standing to challenge the dischargeability of the debt in this case, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In January, 1983, the State of Missouri filed an action against William Cannon in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County alleging that Cannon violated the Merchandising Practices Act, MO.ANN.STAT. Sec. 407.010 et seq. (Vernon 1979), by making fraudulent misrepresentations as to the use of certain bond monies received by him. During the pendency of that action, Cannon filed a Chapter VII bankruptcy proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Missouri. Thereafter, the state court entered an order holding that Cannon had violated the Act, and enjoining any further violations. Additionally, the court ordered that:
3. William A. Cannon shall make the following restitution to the named individuals:
(a) Mr. Jack Wiedmer * * * $ 500.00
(b) Mr. Brent Brady * * * $ 500.00
(c) Mr. Michael Davis * * * $1,000.00
(d) Mr. Charles Hollander * * * $1,000.00
(e) Mr. Jerry Marshall * * * $ 500.00
(f) Mr. Charles Simpson * * * $ 50.00
(g) Ms. Deborah Demma * * * $ 50.00
(h) Mr. Terry Baker * * * $ 50.00
State ex rel. Ashcroft v. Western Express Carriers, Inc., No. 467668, slip op. at 2 (Mo.Cir.Ct., April 7, 1983).
On May 10, 1983, the State of Missouri filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court to determine the dischargeability of the restitution debt. The debtor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the state lacked standing to challenge the discharge. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, holding that the In Re Cannon, 31 B.R. 823, 824 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1983). The court observed that the state court order directed Cannon to "make restitution to eight specifically identified individuals * * * listed therein," id. at 824, and noted that nothing in the Missouri statutory scheme authorized the Attorney General to recover damages on the behalf of individual consumers. The court determined that the individual debtors would be given additional time within which to file their claims either as individuals, or as a class.
On December 20, 1983, the district court affirmed the dismissal. The court stated:
While the State concedes that it may not sue on behalf of private individuals in private action, it characterizes its efforts in this action as enforcement of public rights, with monetary relief for the enforcement running to individuals. However, it is clear that the debtor owes no debt to the State of Missouri. The order involved directs that restitution be made to eight named individuals, not to the State, and the State has not provided the Court with a citation to any particular section of the Missouri statutes authorizing it to act on behalf of private individuals in collecting the amount due them as a result of the above-mentioned order.
In Re Cannon, 36 B.R. 450, at 451 (E.D.Mo.1983). This appeal followed.
The single issue presented by this appeal is whether the State of Missouri had standing under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(2)(A) (1979) to challenge the dischargeability of a debt owed to eight individuals as a result of the state's successful prosecution of the debtor under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
In order to challenge the dischargeability of a debt resulting from a misrepresentation under section 523(a)(2)(A), "the creditor to whom such debt is owed" must request the court to except the debt from discharge. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(c) (1979). A "creditor" is an entity that has a claim against the debtor or his estate. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(9)(A) (1979). A "claim" means either a right to payment, or a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment. 11 U.S.C. Secs. 101(4)(A) & (B) (1979). The State of Missouri was not a creditor to whom a debt was owed within the meaning of the bankruptcy code, accordingly, it lacked standing to challenge the dischargeability of the debt.
The state court specifically ordered that restitution payments be made to eight enumerated individuals. The state concedes that the Attorney General may not sue on behalf of private individuals in a private action. See, State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & A.R. Co., 265 Mo. 646, 178 S.W. 129 (Mo.1915) (en banc). Nonetheless, the state asserts that it has a cognizable claim under sections 101(4)(A) & (B) because of the language in section 407.110 of the Merchandising Practices Act, which states: "Any person who violates the terms of an injunction issued under section 407.100 shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars per violation." MO.ANN.STAT. Sec. 407.110 (Vernon 1979). Section 407.100 provides:
Whenever it appears to the attorney general that a person has engaged in or is engaging in any method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful * * * he may * * * seek and obtain in an action in a circuit court an injunction prohibiting such person from continuing such methods, acts, or practices or engaging therein or doing anything in furtherance thereof. * * * If the court finds that the person has engaged in or is engaging in any method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful * * *, it may make such orders or judgments as may be necessary * * * to restore to any person who has suffered any ascertainable loss by reason of the use of employment of such prohibited methods, acts, or practices any moneys or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any method, act, or practice * * * declared to be unlawful.
MO.ANN.STAT. Sec. 407.100 (Vernon 1979). This section merely provides that the Attorney General may seek an injunction prohibiting the invalid practice, and it grants the court the authority to make whole, persons who have suffered as a result of the invalid practice. Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sherman
...beneficiaries were authorized under federal law to prosecute the action in their own right."), with, Missouri ex rel. Ashcroft v. Cannon (In re Cannon), 741 F.2d 1139, 1142 (8th Cir.1984) (holding that the state of Missouri was not a creditor under the statute at issue and distinguishing Na......
-
In re Sherman
...beneficiaries were authorized under federal law to prosecute the action in their own right."), with, Missouri ex rel. Ashcroft v. Cannon (In re Cannon), 741 F.2d 1139, 1142 (8th Cir.1984) (holding that the state of Missouri was not a creditor under the statute at issue and distinguishing Na......
-
In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.
...to enforce such a payment. Id. The split in authority derives from two cases that First Alliance points to, Missouri v. Cannon (In re Cannon), 741 F.2d 1139, 1141-42 (8th Cir.1984) and Oregon ex rel. Frohnmayer v. Lacy (In re Lacy), 74 B.R. 23, 25-26 (Bankr.D.Or.1987). In Cannon, the state ......
-
In The Matter Of Davis
...to six consumers for violations of state consumer protection laws); 9B Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy 3178 (1991); compare In re Cannon, 741 F.2d 1139, 1141 (8th Cir. 1984) (the Attorney General of Missouri lacked standing to object to the discharge of debts owed by the debtor to eight individuals ......