IN RE PERRY
Decision Date | 24 February 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 08-32362-H4-11.,08-32362-H4-11. |
Citation | 425 B.R. 323 |
Parties | In re Will Clay PERRY, Debtor. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John Richard Millard, Law Office of John Millard, PC, John Wesley Wauson, Matthew Brian Probus, Wauson Probus, Sugar Land, TX, Ray J. Black, Jr., Law Offices of Ray J. Black, Jr., Houston, TX, for Debtor.
Stephen Douglas Statham, Office of U.S. Trustee, Houston, TX, for U.S. Trustee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING ESTIMATION OF THE CLAIMS OF UNITED DEVELOPMENT FUNDING, L.P. AND UNITED DEVELOPMENT FUNDING III, L.P.
The Purpose of this Memorandum Opinion is to set forth this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding its estimation of certain claims for plan confirmation procedures. The Court conducted a two-day mini trial in order to estimate the claims of two large claimants in this Chapter 11 case. The claims, which are the subject of an adversary proceeding, involve relatively complex areas of the law, primarily usury. The Court hopes that by issuing its estimation ruling in writing, the parties will be better able: (1) to narrow the issues to be tried in a full-blown trial on the merits; and (2) to assess whether filing a motion for summary judgement would be appropriate.
On July 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs—WC Southern Colony Development, LLC (Southern Colony); Hidden Lakes Investments, LP (Hidden Lakes); and Will Clay Perry (Perry)—filed a complaint entitled "Plaintiffs' Original Complaint" (the Complaint) Docket No. 1 naming United Development Funding, LP (UDF) and United Development Funding III, LP (UDF III) as defendants (together, "the Defendants"). The Complaint requests the disallowance of the following Proofs of Claim, each of which arose from Perry's guarantees of a series of loans made by UDF and UDF III:(1) Proof of Claim number 43 by UDF III; (2) Proof of Claim number 44 by UDF; (3) Proof of Claim 45 by UDF III; and (4) Proof of Claim 46 by UDF III. In addition to the disallowance of these Proofs of Claim, the Complaint seeks: (1) actual damages pursuant to Tex. Fin.Code §§ 305.003 and 305.004 in favor of Hidden Lakes and Southern Colony; (2) equitable subordination of any claim that this Court may allow in favor of UDF or UDF III; and (3) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in favor of Hidden Lakes and Southern Colony.
On August 24, 2009, UDF and UDF III filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted and, Alternatively, for More Definite Statement" Docket No. 10. Shortly thereafter, on August 28, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint entitled "Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint" Docket No. 12. On September 8, 2009, the Defendants responded by filing a "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted and, Alternatively, for More Definite Statement and Brief in Support Thereof (the Second Motion to Dismiss) Docket No. 14. On October 9, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed "Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint" (the Motion to Amend) Docket No. 19, which was accompanied by "Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint" (the Second Amended Complaint) attached as Exhibit A. On October 14, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the Second Motion to Dismiss, and took the matter under advisement. On October 22, 2009, this Court issued an order Docket No. 23 granting leave to the Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint and abating the adversary proceeding until the Court could hold a mini-trial to estimate the claims of UDF and UDF III. With the issuance of this Memorandum Opinion on the estimation of these claims, the Court will now set a status conference to discuss the posture of the adversary proceeding with the parties' counsel.
The Court held a mini-trial on November 19 & 20, 2009 (the Hearing). The Court set the Hearing so that a timely confirmation hearing can be held—i.e., so that there would not be the inevitable substantial delay in the main case while the parties fully litigated, for months if not years, the amount of the claims to a final judgment.2
At the Hearing, this Court heard testimony from the following witnesses:
At the Hearing, the Court also admitted the following exhibits: (a) Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2-10, 12-41, 44, and 97-107 ( ); (b) Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1, 11, and 42-43 ( ); and (c) UDF and UDF III's exhibits 109-111 (admitted over the Plaintiffs' objection to the legal conclusions contained therein).
After listening to the testimony of these witnesses and hearing oral argument of counsel, the Court took the matter under advisement.
The Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Bankruptcy Rules 7052 and 9014. To the extent that any finding of fact is construed as a conclusion of law, it is adopted as such. Moreover, to the extent that any conclusion of law is construed as a finding of fact, it is adopted as such. The Court reserves its right to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law as it deems appropriate or as may be requested by any of the parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re A & B Assocs., L.P.
...to the particular contingencies at issue,' so long as the underlying purposes of the Code are not contravened." In re Perry, 425 B.R. 323, 342 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010) (quoting Bittner v. Borne Chem. Co., Inc., 691 F.2d 134, 135-36 (3d Cir. 1982)). "The Court is required [to] evaluate claims......
-
DTND Sierra Invs. LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co.
...Snell, 504 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex.1973); Starcrest Trust v. Berry, 926 S.W.2d 343, 351 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, no writ); In re Perry, 425 B.R. 323, 380 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2010). Construing a deed of trust as a form of conveyance finds further support in Black's Law Dictionary, which defines the te......
-
Pierce v. Carson (In re Rader)
...days of the foreclosure sale, but the automatic stay and the discharge injunction prevented them from doing so. See In re Perry, 425 B.R. 323, 397 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2010) (excusing compliance with state law deficiency action statute because compliance would violate the automatic stay); Integra......
-
Tilton v. MBIA Inc. (In re Zohar III, Corp.)
...v. Noland , 517 U.S. 535, 539, 116 S.Ct. 1524, 134 L.Ed.2d 748 (1996) ).123 Winstar , 554 F.3d at 414 ; see also In re Perry , 425 B.R. 323, 380 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010) (citation omitted).124 Am. Compl. ¶ 206 (alleging that US Bank was indenture trustee and "ran the Zohar I auction with and......