In re Bell
| Decision Date | 06 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | 93-32515.,Bankruptcy No. 93-3325 |
| Citation | 181 BR 311 |
| Parties | In re Cynthia L. BELL, Debtor. Cynthia L. BELL, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Ohio |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert G. Trusiak, Toledo, OH, Carina J. Campobasso, Washington, DC, for defendant.
Vaughn Hoblet, Toledo, OH, for plaintiff.
This cause comes before the Court upon Debtor's Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum in Support, and Reply; and Internal Revenue Service's Motion in Opposition, Memorandum in Support, and Notice of Filing. This Court has reviewed the arguments of Counsel, exhibits, as well as the entire record of the case. Based upon that review, and for the following reasons, the Court finds that the Debtor's Motion for Summary Judgment should be Denied, and that the matter should be scheduled for Trial.
The present case concerns two consolidated adversary proceedings related to the Debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The first was initiated upon Debtor's Complaint to determine the dischargeability of the Debtor's debt to the Internal Revenue Service (hereafter "IRS"), under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. The second was initiated upon the Objection of the Internal Revenue Service to the Debtor's Discharge under § 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. These cases having been consolidated, Debtor filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment.
The IRS's claim against Debtor is for income taxes in excess of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00) due as the result of a joint tax return filed by Debtor and her former husband. According to Debtor, these taxes arose from her former husband's ownership in a construction business in Texas in 1985. In 1987, Debtor was divorced from her former husband, and in 1989 married her present husband, Bradley R. Bell. On May 14, 1990, Bradley R. Bell bought a home in Port Clinton, Ohio. This home was titled in both Debtor and her husband's name. In June of 1993, Debtor quit-claimed her interest in the home to her husband. In August of 1993, Debtor filed for bankruptcy. It is the quit-claim transfer of this property which is the subject of the present litigation.
The IRS claims that Debtor should be denied a discharge for transferring property to her spouse who is not liable for the 1985 income tax liability. Debtor claims that she was listed on the title of the property by mistake, and that she and her husband intended to title the property only in his name, as he has paid and continues to pay all costs associated with the house, including the mortgage. Thus, Debtor claims that the title in her name created a trust for the benefit of her husband, and the transfer of her interest in the property to him is only a termination of that trust.
The Bankruptcy Code provides in pertinent part:
The Bankruptcy Rules provide in pertinent part:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide in pertinent part:
Determinations concerning the denial of discharge and the dischargeability of a particular debt are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157. Thus, this case is a core proceeding.
In support of her Motion for Summary Judgement, the Debtor has filed submitted affidavits of herself and her present husband, Bradley R. Bell, in which they state that they did not intend to have the Port Clinton home titled in both names when the home was purchased. Rather, they contend that it was their intent to have the title in only her husband's name, who has paid all costs associated with the home. Thus, it is Debtor's contention that the Debtor's interest in the joint ownership of the home constitutes a trust, and the transfer of the home was only a termination of that trust. In the IRS's Motion in Opposition, the IRS stated that at trial it will show that Debtor transferred the property with the intent to defraud creditors, and that Debtor should not be granted summary judgment based solely on the affidavits of parties in interest.
In Debtor's Reply, Debtor argues that under the Supreme Court's "New Era" standards for summary judgment established in Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the IRS has not met its burden of showing a material issue of fact through the use of affidavits or other documentary evidence. (See Street v. J.C. Bradford & Company, 886 F.2d 1472, 1476 (6th Cir.1989), for a discussion of the dramatic changes brought about by these cases.) The IRS has since filed the affidavit of Sheila Walsh, a revenue officer of the IRS, as well as copies of the title, quit-claim deed, mortgage, and other documents associated with the subject property. Debtor has not objected to this filing.
A review of the Supreme Court's recent holdings regarding Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 summary judgment is necessary in this case. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. As the Supreme Court stated, "The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. However, the initial burden is borne by the moving party to show an absence of any genuine issue of fact. The moving party can discharge this burden either by coming forward with evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, or by "showing" that there is no such issue by pointing out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2554. There is no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553.
The party opposing the motion for summary judgment bears the burden after the moving party has met its burden of coming forward and showing an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2252. "When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. The opposing party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. To this end, the opposing party must, "go beyond the pleadings, and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553 (quotations omitted). Thus, as the Court noted in Anderson, the non-moving party must show more than the, "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties to defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.
A "material fact" is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law. Id. This inquiry necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. Further, the dispute about a material fact must be "genuine." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. A dispute is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. This standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which states that a trial judge must direct a verdict if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2511.
Though the non-moving party bears the burden of coming forward with facts upon a properly posited motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial