In re Foster
Citation | 556 B.R. 233 |
Decision Date | 12 August 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 15–33626–KLP |
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | In re: John Herbert Foster, Jr., Debtor. |
Laura Taylor Alridge, Veronica D. Brown–Moseley, Amanda Erin DeBerry, Emily C. Fort, Mark C. Leffler, Stephen F. Relyea, Boleman Law Firm, P.C., Richmond, VA, Barry W. Spear, Boleman Law Firm, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Debtor.
Before the Court are two objections to the exemption claimed by Debtor John Herbert Foster, Jr. The Debtor filed a petition initiating this chapter 13 case on July 20, 2015. Along with the petition, he filed schedules as well as the required statement of financial affairs and statement of monthly income and calculation of commitment period.
The Debtor amended his schedules on November 23, 2015. On line 10 of Amended Schedule B, which requires a debtor to disclose annuities, the Debtor listed $103,893.04 in the "Outback Steakhouse, Inc., Partner Equity Plan, Partner Equity Deferred Compensation Diversified Plan" (the "Partner Equity Plan") and stated in part that "Debtor's interest [in the Partner Equity Plan] is excluded from property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2)." In Amended Schedule C, the Debtor claimed a 75% exemption in "aggregate disposable income" from an anticipated August 2017 distribution of $103,893.04 from the Partner Equity Plan, basing the exemption on Va.Code § 34–29.1
Both the chapter 13 trustee and Margaret S. Foster2 have objected to the Debtor's claimed exemption of his interest in the Partner Equity Plan. The Court held a hearing on the objections on April 26, 2016, at which the Court received evidence and heard the argument of the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the two objections under advisement.
The Debtor was formerly a managing partner of Outback Steakhouse, Inc. He entered into the Partner Equity Plan in March of 2006. In connection therewith, he executed a document entitled "Partner Equity Deferred Compensation Diversified Plan Document" (the "Plan Document"). The Plan Document provides in its preamble that the Partner Equity Plan is part of an Outback Steakhouse, Inc. effort to "provide nonqualified deferred compensation benefits to Partners to supplement their retirement savings." The Plan Document also states that the Partner Equity Plan should be "interpreted to comply in all respects with Internal Revenue Code ... Section 409Aand those provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ... applicable to an unfunded plan maintained primarily to provide deferred compensation benefits for a select group of 'management or highly compensated employees.' " Additional provisions of the Partner Equity Plan include the following:
Article 2 of the Plan Document states that, Under Article 4 of the Plan Document, participants in the Partner Equity Plan receive distributions in three installments pursuant to a prescribed schedule. The Debtor received two distributions prepetition, and a final distribution is due to him in August 2017. In Schedule B, the Debtor listed the value of funds remaining in his account established under the Partner Equity Plan to be $103,893.04, which amount is also reflected in the July 31, 2015, statement issued by the Partner Equity Plan.
There are two issues before the Court relative to the Debtor's interest in the Partner Equity Plan. First, Ms. Foster3 contends that the Debtor's remaining funds in the Partner Equity Plan should be included as property of his bankruptcy estate, despite the Debtor's assertion to the contrary in Schedule B. Second, Ms. Foster contends that the provisions of Va. Code § 34–29do not support the Debtor's claim in Schedule C that the Partner Equity Plan is partially exempt. As there would be no reason to address the Debtor's claim of exemption if the Partner Equity Plan is not property of his bankruptcy estate, the Court will first address that issue.
Section 541(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1),4 defines one of the fundamental concepts of bankruptcy law, the existence of the "bankruptcy estate:"
The general rule is thus that all property owned by a debtor at the time a case is commenced becomes property of the bankruptcy estate. However, § 541(c)(2)qualifies that definition by addressing anti-alienation or nonassignability clauses such as the one contained in § 10.1 of the Partner Equity Plan:
(2) A restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title.
In other words, an anti-alienation clause that satisfies the conditions of § 541(c)(2)may operate to prevent certain trust property from becoming property of the bankruptcy estate. The burden is on the Debtor to prove that the funds at issue are excluded from his bankruptcy estate pursuant to the provisions of § 541(c)(2). See Rhiel v. Adams (In re Adams), 302 B.R. 535, 540 (6th Cir. BAP 2003); RES–GA Dawson, LLC v. Rogers (In re Rogers) , 538 B.R. 158, 161 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2015); In re Wendt, 320 B.R. 904, 909 (Bankr.D.Minn.2005); Pineo v. Fulton (In re Fulton), 240 B.R. 854, 862 n. 4 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1999).
Ms. Foster argues that § 541(c)(2)is inapplicable in the present case because 1) the Partner Equity Plan is not a trust, and 2) the anti-alienation clause of § 10.1 is not "enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law." In support of her argument, she cites this Court's recent case of In re Gnadt, No. 11–10378–BFK, 2015 WL 2194475 . The Debtor counters that under the 2011 decision of Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Khan (In re Khan) , 461 B.R. 343 (E.D.Va.2011), the Partner Equity Plan does qualify as a trust.
The facts in Gnadt are strikingly similar to those in the instant case. There, the debtor was a participant in a § 409Adeferred benefit plan (the "409A Plan") with terms similar to those in the Partner Equity Plan. The 409A Plan in Gnadt also contained an anti-alienation clause similar to that in the instant case.
In Gnadt, the Court set forth a three-part test to determine whether § 541(c)(2)applies to exclude property from the bankruptcy estate. First, the debtor must have "a beneficial interest in a trust." Second, there must be a "restriction on alienation of the debtor's beneficial interest." Third, "the restriction on alienation [must be] enforceable under applicable non-bankruptcy law." 2015 WL 2194475, at *6.5 This test is not stated in the alternative, and in order to satisfy it and successfully exclude property from the bankruptcy estate under § 541(c)(2), a debtor must satisfy each of the three elements.
The Court in Gnadt found that its 409A Plan was not a trust; thus, the debtor had not satisfied the first element of the three-part test and § 541(c)(2)was inapplicable. In reaching this conclusion, the Court applied the Fourth Circuit's test to determine whether a trust has been established. In Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Strack, the Fourth Circuit held that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Apfel
...ambiguous, "where there is doubt as to whether property is exempt, it should be resolved in favor of the exemption." In re Foster, 556 B.R. 233 n.14 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016) (citations omitted).7 Lending the workers' compensation proceeds to ProTax, LLC, presumably allows the Debtor to presum......
-
In re Johnson
...of this restriction, several state wage garnishment exemption statutes are patterned on 15 U.S.C. § 1673. See, e.g. , In re Foster, 556 B.R. 233 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016) (Virginia wage exemption statute mirroring the language of 15 U.S.C. § 1673 ); Urban, 262 B.R. at 867 (Kansas wage exemptio......
-
In re Eberhardt
... ... 108 at 5. With those facts at hand, the Court considers the ... Objection ... "The ... general rule is ... that all property owned by a debtor at ... the time a case is commenced becomes property of the ... bankruptcy estate." In re Foster , 556 B.R. 233, ... 236-37 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016). "Under Section 522(b)(1), ... a debtor may claim certain property as exempt from such ... bankruptcy estate, and such 'property ... will be ... excluded from the bankruptcy estate [u]nless a party in ... interest ... ...
-
In re Naranjo
...States , 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917) (citations omitted).9 www.merriam-webster.com.10 In In re Foster , 556 B.R. 233 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016), this Court stated that:Exemption statutes, including those in Virginia, serve a number of important societal purposes by enab......