In re Cofer
Decision Date | 08 January 2021 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy Case No. 19-40361-JMM |
Citation | 625 B.R. 194 |
Parties | IN RE: Michelle Louise COFER Debtor. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Idaho |
Daniel C. Green, RACINE OLSON, Pocatello, Idaho, Attorney for chapter 7 trustee.
Paul Ross, Paul, Idaho, Attorney for Debtor.
JOSEPH M. MEIER, CHIEF U. S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Before the Court is "Trustee's Motion for an Order Confirming the Amount of Debtor's Homestead Exemption Following Conversion to Chapter 7," Dkt. No. 97 (the "Motion"), filed by Gary Rainsdon ("Trustee").1 The Motion seeks a determination that Debtor's homestead exemption is limited to the value determined when the case was under chapter 13, $32,020.56, and that appreciation inures to the chapter 7 estate. Id . Michelle Cofer ("Debtor") objects to the Motion, arguing property which vested in the Debtor upon confirmation of its chapter 13 plan is not property for the estate upon conversion, and, alternatively, that appreciation inures to the Debtor. Dkt. No. 98 (the "Objection"). Trustee submitted a brief in reply to the Objection. Dkt. No. 102. A hearing was held on December 8, 2020, and the parties made oral arguments. The Court took the matter under advisement. The Court has now considered the parties arguments and the applicable law and issues the following decision which resolves the matter. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052 ; 9014.
Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition on April 17, 2019. Dkt. No. 1. Her schedules reflect that she owns real property located at 28 West Clark Street in Paul, Idaho (the "Home"), valued on the date of the petition at $100,250. Id. at 10. Debtor claimed an exemption of $100,000 in the Home. Id. at 16. The Home was encumbered by a $61,073.75 mortgage held by Ditech and an $868.79 judgment lien owed to Outsource Materials. Id. at 20–21. On June 6, 2020, the Court granted Debtor's motion to avoid the judgment lien under § 522(f) held by Outsource Materials.2 Dkt. No. 27. On September 24, 2019, the Court issued an order limiting the amount of the Debtor's exemption in the Home to $32,020.56. Dkt. No. 59.3
On September 25, 2019, the Court entered an order confirming Debtor's chapter 13 plan. Dkt. Nos. 3, 60 (the "Plan"). Debtor's Plan provided that all property of the estate vested in the debtor upon confirmation. Dkt. No. 3 at 4. On March 6, 2020, the chapter 13 trustee moved to dismiss the chapter 13 case because Debtor was delinquent in making plan payments. Dkt. No. 66. After initially objecting to the motion to dismiss, Debtor filed a motion to convert to chapter 7. Dkt. No. 68. The Court granted Debtor's motion to convert on March 27, 2020. Dkt. No. 70.
Trustee now seeks an order "limiting the amount of Debtor's exemption in the Property in the Chapter 7 case to $32,020.56, and that any appreciation in the value of the Property is property of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate." Dkt. No. 97. Trustee seeks this relief so he may sell the Home for the benefit of the estate.
Debtor objects, arguing the vesting provision in the plan and under § 1327(b) prevents the Home from becoming property of the chapter 7 estate under § 348(f)(1)(A). Dkt. No. 98 at 3. Alternatively, Debtor argues even if the Home revested to the estate under § 348(f)(1)(A), any appreciation in the value of the home belongs to the Debtor and the amount of the homestead exemption is determined based on the date of conversion. Id. at 3–5.
Property of the estate is broadly defined by § 541 and includes "all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case," and "[p]roceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of or from property of the estate, except such as are earnings from services performed by an individual debtor after the commencement of the case." § 541(a)(1), (6). In a chapter 13 case, property of the estate also includes earnings and property defined in § 541 acquired postpetition. § 1306(a). Upon conversion from a case under chapter 13, "property of the estate in the converted case [ ] consist[s] of property of the estate, as of the date of filing of the petition, that remains in the possession of or is under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion." § 348(f)(1)(A). The phrase "date of the petition" means the date of the filing of the original petition because "[c]onversion of a case from a case under one chapter of this title to a case under another chapter of this title ... does not effect a change in the date of the filing of the petition, the commencement of the case, or the order for relief." § 348(a).
Debtor contends the vesting provision in the Plan, which is consistent with § 1327(b)–(c), vested absolute ownership of the Home in Debtor upon confirmation of the Plan, and the Home ceased to be property of the estate. Dkt. No. 98 at 2–3. Debtor claims this precludes the Home from being property of the estate in the converted case. Id. Debtor's position, which, in effect, implies an inherit conflict exists between § 348(f)(1) and § 1327(b), misconstrues the plain language of § 348(f)(1). This Court recently summarized the standards for interpreting provisions of the Code:
In re Evans , 615 B.R. 290, 294 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2020). Further, "[u]nder accepted canons of statutory interpretation, we must interpret statutes as a whole, giving effect to each word and making every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or superfluous." Boise Cascade Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A. , 942 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991).
For Debtor's argument to hold water, § 348 would have to read "property of the estate in the converted case shall consist of property of the estate, as of the date of conversion4 , that remains in the possession of or is under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion." However, § 348(f)(1)(A) states that "property of the estate in the converted case shall consist of property of the estate, as of the date of filing of the petition , that remains in the possession of or is under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion" Id . (emphasis added). A plain language reading of § 348(f)(1)(A) results in the Home, which was owned by the Debtor on the date she filed her chapter 13 petition, and remained in the Debtor's possession on the date of conversion, being property of the chapter 7 estate upon conversion.
Further, interpreting § 1327(b)–(c) as preventing the operation of § 348(f)(1)(A) on conversion would create an inconsistency in the code. Such an inconsistency can be prevented because these two sections can be read in harmony with one another. That harmony is that a debtor is vested with property of the chapter 13 estate upon plan confirmation, but upon conversion, any such property that was property of the estate as of the date of the petition that a debtor still possesses or controls (i.e. , has not already exercised rights to sell the property) is recaptured into the chapter 7 estate.
This reading is consistent with the case law on point. The Debtor cited several cases in support of her argument that the Home is not property of the estate. Only one, however, Sender v. Golden (In re Golden) , 528 B.R. 803 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2015), discussed the suggested conflict between § 348(f)(1)(A) and § 1327(b). Golden cuts deeply against Debtor's argument:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Castleman
...652–54 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2020), aff'd , BAP No. CO-20-003, 2020 WL 5869458 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. (Colo.) Oct. 2, 2020) ; In re Cofer , 625 B.R. 194, 202 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2021) ; In re Lynch , 363 B.R. 101, 107 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007) ; In re Niles , 342 B.R. 72, 76 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2006). I will ......
-
Masingale v. Munding (In re Masingale)
...of the petition date; this is often referred to as the ‘snapshot rule.’ "), aff'd , 988 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2021) ; In re Cofer , 625 B.R. 194, 199 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2021) ("[E]xemptions are determined as of the petition date pursuant to § 522(a)(2), and § 348(a) makes clear that conversion ......
-
In re Castleman
... ... ambiguity. Compare In re Barrera, 620 B.R. 645 ... (Bankr. D. Colo. 2020), affd, No. BAP CO-20-003, 2020 WL ... 5869458 (10th Cir. BAP Oct. 2, 2020) (holding that ... post-petition, pre-conversion equity gain inures to the ... debtor) and In re Cofer, 625 B.R. 194, 202 (Bankr ... D. Idaho 2021) (same) with In re Goins, 539 B.R ... 510, 516 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2015) (holding that post-petition, ... pre-conversion equity gain inures to the estate) and In ... re Peter, 309 B.R. 792, 795 (Bankr. D. Or. 2004) ... (same) ... ...
-
Postpetition Proceeds of Exempt Interests in Property: Who Owns the Appreciation?
...10th Cir. Oct. 2, 2020); Salas v. McGranahan (In re Salas), No. 05-CV-1107, 2006 WL 3300770, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2006); In re Cofer, 625 B.R. 194, 202 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2021); In re Niles, 342 B.R. 72, 74 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2006); In re Jackson, 317 B.R. 511, 513 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004).......
-
The Housing Bubble and Consumer Bankruptcy (Parts III and IV).
...chapter 11 Debtor Pe and Post BAPCPA. 89 Am. Bankr. LJ. 455 (2015). (154) A slightly different interpretation is proffered by In re Cofer, 625 B.R. 194, 197 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2021). The second "property of the estate" means the actual chapter 13 estate as it existed on bankruptcy day, even i......