In re Mainely Payroll, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 May 1999 |
Docket Number | 96-10542,96-10543,Adversary No. 98-1049.,Bankruptcy No. 96-10533 |
Parties | In re MAINELY PAYROLL, INC., Clifford J. Levesque, and Dorothy Levesque, Debtors. P.J. Perrino, Jr., Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Salem, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Maine |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Rufus E. Brown, Portland, Maine, for plaintiff.
Louis H. Kornreich, James R. Wholly, Bangor, Maine, for Salem, Inc., defendant.
Submitted for decision on a stipulated record is the trustee's action to recover a fraudulent transfer from Salem, Inc. Because I conclude that Salem is an "immediate or mediate transferee" of the initial transferee and because Salem took the property it received for value, in good faith, and without knowledge that the transfer was voidable, judgment will enter in its favor.1
The trustee filed his complaint against Salem on May 21, 1998. By compromise or dismissal, he has disposed of claims against all defendants other than Salem.2 Invoking Code § 548 and § 550, the trustee seeks to recover $31,084.06.
Rather than spinning my own factual narrative, I will set forth the parties' concise stipulation verbatim:
(Stipulation, Court Doc. No. 12.) (Exhibits excluded.)
Of course, I may appropriately find facts based on reasonable inferences drawn from the stipulated record. See, e.g., Brandt v. Repco Printers & Lithographics, Inc. (In re Healthco Int'l, Inc.), 132 F.3d 104, 107-08 (1st Cir.1997). The stipulation establishes all the material facts except a very few. The balance, recited in the course of the following discussion, are products of elementary inference.
The trustee asserts that Salem received $31,084.06 of MPI's money, while MPI was insolvent, in a transaction that bestowed no benefit whatsoever on MPI. Per Codeprescribed priorities, he argues that the funds should be returned to the bankruptcy estate to be divvied among MPI's creditors. Section 548(a) provides the substantive underpinning for the trustee's theory:
The stipulation establishes all elements of a voidable, fraudulent transfer.4 MPI's property ($31,084.06),5 was transferred to Salem, within one year of MPI's voluntary petition, while MPI was insolvent, and MPI received less than reasonably equivalent value (nothing) in return.
The extent of a fraudulent transfer recipient's liability, and whether defenses are available to it, are set forth in § 550. Insofar as pertinent, it states:
Having taken possession of the cashier's check and negotiated it, Salem is a "transferee" of MPI's money. The only question relates to Salem's status as either the "initial transferee" of the money, § 550(a)(1), or an "immediate or mediate transferee of the initial transferee." § 550(a)(2).
If Salem were the "initial transferee" of MPI's money, its liability would be strict. As to the initial transferee, it makes no difference whether it gave value, acted in good faith, or was ignorant of the transfer's voidable character. See Christy v. Alexander & Alexander of New York Inc. (In re Finley), 130 F.3d 52, 57 (2d Cir.1997); Rupp v. Markgraf, 95 F.3d 936, 938 (10th Cir.1996); O'Donnell v. Royal Bus. Group, Inc. (In re Oxford Homes, Inc.), 180 B.R. 1, 12 (Bankr.D.Me.1995). Neither innocence in action nor unfairness in result is a defense.7 However, as the trustee concedes, if Salem were not the initial transferee it could invoke § 550(b)'s defenses (i.e., value, good faith and ignorance of avoidability) to defeat recovery. See generally 3 Hon. William L. Norton, Jr., et al., Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 2d § 60:5 (1997 & Supp.1999).
Salem contends that Bond Brook Motors, the entity listed as remitter on the cashier's check and the party to whom Salem sold the vehicle, is MPI's initial transferee. The trustee contends that Bond Brook was not MPI's initial transferee; he asserts that Salem was.8
The constituents of a transfer subject to avoidance under the Code and the characteristics of an initial transferee are determined by federal law. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Sergi, BAP No. MW 98-037
... ... Co. v. Fox (In re Vigil Bros. Constr., Inc.), 193 B.R. 513, 516 (9th Cir. BAP 1996) (Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reviews trial court's legal ... ...