In re Beal
| Docket Number | 22-50000-rlj13 |
| Decision Date | 25 July 2022 |
| Parties | BRUCE H. BEAL and KAREN L. BEAL, Debtors. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas |
The debtors, Bruce and Karen Beal, object to the proof of claim filed by Capital One Auto Finance ("Capital One"). The objection was raised at the Court's regular chapter 13 docket held on May 25, 2022. After a short hearing at the conclusion of the Court's docket, the Court took the matter under advisement. For the reasons stated below, the Court sustains the Beals' objection and disallows Capital One's claim.
The Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); this dispute is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C § 157(b)(2)(B).
This claim objection arises under the bankruptcy of Bruce and Karen Beal. The Beals have filed for bankruptcy under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code four times. They first filed for bankruptcy on November 4, 2015. The Court dismissed that case without prejudice on May 19, 2017 because the Beals failed to make required payments under the plan. Bruce Beal filed for bankruptcy again on November 5, 2018. The Court dismissed that case without prejudice on November 28, 2018 because Mr. Beal failed to complete credit counseling and failed to submit required documentation. The Beals filed for bankruptcy a third time on March 4, 2019 ("2019 Case"). The Court dismissed that case without prejudice on February 11, 2021 because the Beals failed to make required payments under the plan. The Beals filed their current bankruptcy petition on January 3, 2022. On June 14 2022, the Court confirmed the Beals' plan.
Capital One filed a proof of claim in the 2019 Case for an unsecured claim of $14,305.53. Case No. 19-50053, Claim No. 7-1. The Beals had entered a contract ("Contract") to purchase a used 2008 Ford F-150 ("Vehicle") from Reagor-Dykes Imports, LP ("Reagor-Dykes"). Id. at Part 2. Capital One financed the purchase and was assigned Reagor-Dykes' interest in the Contract. Id. Reagor-Dykes delivered the Vehicle to the Beals but never provided the title to the Vehicle to either the Beals or Capital One. Reagor-Dykes filed for bankruptcy on August 1, 2018, shortly after the Beals purchased the Vehicle. Reagor-Dykes' bankruptcy and collapse is the ostensible reason for its failure to provide the title to the Vehicle. Without title, the Vehicle could not be registered or insured and thus was rendered unusable. This is still the case.
Capital One's claim in the 2019 Case was for the amount due under the Contract. Although Capital One filed its claim as unsecured, the plan in the 2019 Case ("2019 Plan") classified the claim as secured in the amount of $13,985.50. Case No. 19-50053, ECF No. 65 at 4. The 2019 Plan treated the Vehicle as surrendered, stating, "the surrender of the Collateral described herein will provide for the payment of all or part of a claim against the Debtors(s) in the amount of the value given herein." Id. (emphasis in original). Capital One never objected to confirmation of the 2019 Plan.
Although the Beals surrendered the Vehicle under the 2019 Plan, Capital One never took possession of the Vehicle. Capital One says that, on account of Reagor-Dykes' bankruptcy and collapse, it is unable to determine if Reagor-Dykes ever recorded its security interest in the Vehicle. While Capital One holds the security agreement creating a security interest against the Vehicle, it questions whether its security interest in the Vehicle is perfected without proof that its lien is recorded on a certificate of title. It thus filed its proof of claim in the 2019 Case as unsecured. Capital One says it cannot be sure it has a legal right to repo the Vehicle. At the time of the hearing on this claim objection, the Vehicle was still in the Beals' possession.
After the 2019 Case was dismissed, Capital One filed a proof of claim in the Beals' current case ("2022 Case"), this time for an unsecured amount of $23,356.24. ECF No. 22-50000, Claim No. 8-1, Part 2. The claim increased since the 2019 Case from the continued accrual of interest. The Beals objected to Capital One's claim-the objection before the Court now. The Beals argue that the claim is void due to a breach of contract or, in the alternative, is limited to its treatment under the 2019 Plan by the doctrine of res judicata.
On June 14, 2022, the Court confirmed the Beals' plan in the 2022 Case ("2022 Plan"), while this claim objection was still pending. Unlike the 2019 Plan, which treated Capital One's claim as secured and subject to surrender, the 2022 Plan treats Capital One's claim as unsecured in the amount of $13,985.00. Case No. 22-50000, ECF No. 45 at 4. Although they did not formally treat the Vehicle as surrendered, the Beals stated at the hearing on the claim objection that they still want Capital One to recover the Vehicle. On June 21, 2022, the Court entered an order lifting the automatic stay to allow Capital One to proceed to take possession of the Vehicle.
"A claim is not allowable against a debtor if that claim is not enforceable against the debtor under 'any agreement or applicable law.'" In re Jobs.com, Inc., 283 B.R. 209, 213-14 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2002) (quoting 11 U.S.C § 502(b)(1)).[1] The Beals submit that Capital One's claim is unenforceable under Texas contract law because Reagor-Dykes breached the Contract by not supplying the Beals with title to the Vehicle. The Beals contend they may bring all claims they have against Reagor-Dykes under the Contract against Capital One as assignee. Alternatively, the Beals argue Capital One's claim is limited to its treatment under the 2019 Plan by the doctrine of res judicata.
Although the Beals contend that res judicata is their fallback position, that issue must be addressed first, as res judicata is a double-edged sword. While the doctrine, if applicable, would limit Capital One's claim to its treatment in the 2019 Case, it would also preclude the Beals from bringing their breach-of-contract claim, as res judicata bars all claims that "could and should have been brought in the earlier litigation." D-1 Enters., Inc. v. Com. State Bank, 864 F.2d 36, 38 (5th Cir. 1989). As Capital One was able to bring its claim in the 2019 Case, so the Beals were able to raise their breach-of-contract claim-if res judicata applied here, both parties' claims would be barred. The Court accordingly will begin its analysis with the application of res judicata.
The Beals contend that Capital One's claim in the 2022 Case should be limited, under the doctrine of res judicata, to the amount and treatment of its claim in the 2019 Case. Res judicata bars a party and its privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in a prior action that received a final judgment on the merits. Ries v. Paige (In re Paige), 610 F.3d 865, 870 (5th Cir. 2010). For a claim to be barred by res judicata, four elements must be met: "the parties must be identical in both suits, the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, there must have been a final judgment on the merits and the same cause of action must be involved in both cases." Id. (quoting Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 559 (5th Cir. 1983)). "Additionally, where the four elements of the res judicata test are met, [a court] must also determine whether 'the previously unlitigated claim could or should have been brought in the earlier litigation.'" Id. (quoting D-1 Enters., Inc., 864 F.2d at 38).
Three of the four elements of res judicata are met here. The parties are identical in the 2019 Case and 2022 Case-both the Beals and Capital One were privy to the confirmation of the 2019 Plan and are now the parties to this claim objection. Case No. 19-50053, Notice of Hearing on 2019 Plan, ECF No. 67; Case No. 19-50053, Order Confirming 2019 Plan, ECF No. 77. The Court is a court of competent jurisdiction to enter an order confirming a chapter 13 plan. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a), 157(b)(2)(L); Misc. Order No. 33 Order of Reference of Bankruptcy Cases, U.S. District Court for N.D. Tex. And the same "causes of action" are involved in both cases- Capital One's claim in the 2022 Case is based on the same contract liability as its claim in the 2019 Case.
The remaining element, that there has been a final judgment on the merits, is not met here. Normally, an order confirming a chapter 13 plan is a final judgment. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010). However, "[w]hen a Chapter 13 case is dismissed prior to completion, the confirmed plan is voided and neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel apply because there is no longer a final judgment." In re Wertz, 557 B.R. 695, 705 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2016). That is because "the pre-discharge dismissal of a bankruptcy case returns the parties to the positions they were in before the case was initiated" and "restore[s] all property rights to the position in which they were found at the commencement of the case." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji (In re Oparaji), 698 F.3d 231, 238 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Sanitate, 415 B.R. 98, 105 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009)). Therefore, when a bankruptcy court dismisses a bankruptcy plan without granting a discharge, "the court's acceptance of that plan [is] negated and the parties [are] no longer bound by its terms." Id.
Res judicata does not apply to bind Capital One to the terms of the 2019 Plan, nor does it bar the Beals from asserting their breach-of-contract claim against Capital One in this case.
The Beals' breach-of-contract claim is based on the following provision of the Contract:
NOTICE: ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT...
To continue reading
Request your trial