In re Cannon
| Decision Date | 15 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | Complaint No. 83-0324(3).,Bankruptcy No. 83-00238(3) |
| Parties | In re William A. CANNON, Jane Cannon, Debtors. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. William A. CANNON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Peter Lumaghi, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Leslie A. Davis, Clayton, Mo., for defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the motion of the defendant/debtor to dismiss an adversary complaint for lack of standing to sue. In its complaint, the State of Missouri, plaintiff, has requested a determination of non-dischargeability of a debt as the result of the debtor's alleged false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The debtor's motion attacks only the plaintiff's standing to prosecute this cause of action. Therefore, this memorandum addresses only the narrow question of whether or not the State of Missouri may sue under Section 523(a)(2) for a determination of the dischargeability of a debt based upon the debtor's pre-bankruptcy actions, when such actions allegedly resulted in damages to entities other than the State.
Therefore, the request referred to at Section 523(c) must be made by an entity which is a creditor of the debtor; and the debt sought to be excepted from discharge must be owed to that entity.
The debt(s) complained of here are based upon alleged misrepresentations by William Anthony Cannon as to the use of certain bond monies received by him as an individual and officer of a non-debtor corporation (Western Express Carriers, Inc.), and upon his alleged misrepresentations concerning the payment of salaries. The creditors to whom the debts are owed as a result of these alleged misrepresentations are the individuals who paid the sums described as bond monies, and the employees of the debtor and/or Western Express. The State of Missouri paid no bond monies to the debtor, and was not the debtor's employee, and therefore is not a creditor of this debtor for any sums which may be owed for unpaid salaries or for bond monies which may be determined to be refundable.
Lacking status as a creditor, the State of Missouri may not request a determination of dischargeability of pre-bankruptcy debts which resulted from the debtor's misrepresentations as set out in this complaint.
The State argues, however, that its standing here is based upon a post-bankruptcy judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County against William Anthony Cannon, debtor, and against the non-debtor corporation. The County Circuit Court (hereafter, State Court) found that the debtor had violated Section 407.020 RSMo, 1978, by misrepresenting facts relating to salaries and the use of bond monies. As a result of these findings, the State Court entered a permanent injunction against the debtor prohibiting him from engaging in similar practices in the future.
In addition to the injunction, the State Court, at paragraph 3 of its order, directed that William A. Cannon make restitution to eight specifically identified individuals in the amounts listed therein. The State of Missouri has now contended that as the successful plaintiff in that action, it possesses standing in the Bankruptcy Court to request that the order of restitution be determined to be not discharged in this case. For the several reasons set out here, this Court must reject that contention.
Initially, it must be noted that a bankruptcy discharge is limited to two general categories of debts: those which arose before the date of the order for relief (formerly referred to as adjudication); and those claims for which liability is deemed to have arisen before the commencement of the case as may be determined by law. 11 U.S.C. § 727(b). The State Court judgment was entered after the order for relief in this case; and it does not fall within the categories of liabilities deemed to have arisen before the commencement of the case as described at Section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code. As previously determined, the State of Missouri was not a creditor of this debtor prior to the entry of the order for relief. Therefore, if the State Court order has created a new debt in favor of the State of Missouri, the obligation would have arisen after the order for relief and would not be discharged in this bankruptcy case. It is axiomatic that an action to determine dischargeability does not lie if the debt is not subject to being discharged in a bankruptcy case.
However, this Court finds and concludes that the order of restitution did not create a new debt of this debtor in favor of the State of Missouri because the basis of the liability is the debtor's pre-petition misrepresentations to other parties as determined by the State Court. The language of the State Court order is as follows:
3. William A. Cannon shall make the following restitution to the named individuals . . .
By directing that restitution be made to certain named individuals, the State Court clearly did not award a money judgment to the State of Missouri against this debtor. Therefore, the debtor owes no debt to the State of Missouri as the result of the alleged misrepresentations, and the State may not prosecute this dischargeability action in its own behalf.
Although the preceding findings provide a sufficient basis upon which to grant the debtor's motion to dismiss this complaint, the circumstances in the debtor's bankruptcy case necessitate a consideration of the State's ability to prosecute this action as a representative or agent of the parties injured by the debtor's misrepresentations. The debtor's schedules refer to more than eight hundred and seventy (870) individuals who may be in that class of persons who paid bond monies or who were employees of the debtor or Western Express. The possibility that each of these persons may file a complaint to determine dischargeability suggests that the debtor may be unduly prejudiced if compelled to defend each action separately. Further, it has been suggested that the cost of prosecuting separate lawsuits may discourage most of the individuals from attempting to recover the relatively small amounts involved in each case.1 One obvious answer to this apparent dilemma is the initiation of a lawsuit by a representative of, or agent for, the group of individuals, or by a class action suit as may be recognized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applicable to a bankruptcy proceeding.
Should such an action be possible in this case, the record provides no basis upon which to conclude that the State of Missouri may prosecute this action as agent, representative, or attorney for the individuals or the class of individuals listed in the debtor's schedules.
The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial