In re Posadas Associates
| Decision Date | 13 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 11-90-00636 M L. |
| Parties | In re POSADAS ASSOCIATES, a New Mexico limited partnership, Debtor. |
| Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Mexico |
Edward D. Myers, Albuquerque, N.M., for debtor.
David T. Thuma, Albuquerque, N.M., for RTC.
Douglas R. Vadnais, Albuquerque, N.M., for Mariner Hotel Corp.
P. Diane Webb, Albuquerque, N.M., Asst. U.S. Trustee.
This matter came before the Court for final hearing on Mariner Hotel Corporation's first amended motion for relief for custodian and other entities with respect to turnover. ABQ Bank and the debtor objected to the motion. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel informed the Court that a stipulation had been reached in regard to some of the matters in the motion, but remaining for the Court to determine were: whether attorney fees for the custodian would be allowed as an administrative expense and whether the purchase and installation of a computer system by Mariner would be allowed as an administrative expense. The Court ruled from the bench as to the cost of the computer system and post-April 9, 1990, attorney fees, finding that these items would be allowed as administrative expenses. The Court took under advisement the question of whether post-filing, pre-April 9, 1990, attorney fees would be allowed as an administrative expense, instructing counsel to file letter memoranda on the issue. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the exhibits, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the post-filing, pre-April 9, 1990, attorney fees will not be allowed. The objections by the debtor and ABQ Bank will be sustained.
On November 15, 1989, an order appointing receiver was entered in New Mexico's Third Judicial District state court. ABQ Bank had moved for the appointment and to enforce assignments of rents and income. The court appointed Guy J. Roney III, an employee of Mariner Hotel Corporation (Mariner), as receiver. Paragraph 5 of the order gave the receiver the authority to "delegate any and all authority, rights and powers to the real estate manager or management company." The state court judge appointed Mr. Roney with the understanding that Mariner would serve as the management company, operate the property through its employees, prepare all necessary accountings, and report the results to the state court on a monthly basis. On January 10, 1991, Thomas J. O'Leary was substituted as receiver, and Mr. Roney was discharged. Mariner continued as the management company.
On March 2, 1990, the debtor filed for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On the same day, the debtor also filed an emergency motion for § 543(b)1 turnover. In response, ABQ Bank, the party who had instituted the state court receivership proceedings, filed a motion to permit the receiver to remain in possession. ABQ Bank also filed a motion to appoint a trustee which incorporated the allegations of its motion to permit the receiver to remain in possession. This Court entered an interim order allowing the receiver to remain in possession and control as receiver until the final ruling on the motions. Thereafter, the Court entered an order which excused compliance with turnover and allowed the receiver to remain in possession.
On April 9, 1990, Mariner filed a motion for relief for custodian and other entities with respect to turnover.2 Pursuant to separate stipulations entered into between Mariner and ABQ Bank, and Mariner and the debtor, the April 9, 1990, motion constitutes an application by Mariner to employ Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger & Thurmond, P.C., and Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. The Court, from the bench, approved the employment and allowed the post-April 9, 1990, attorney fees as an administrative expense. Detailed attorney time sheets introduced as an exhibit at the hearing on the first amended motion for relief for custodian begin on the date of March 13, 1990, eleven days after the bankruptcy filing. Thus, pre-filing fees for the custodian are not considered in the motion.
Thus, the sole question remaining for the Court is whether the post-filing, pre-April 9, 1990, attorney fees will be allowed as an administrative expense. The legal question which then arises is whether prior approval of employment of professional persons pursuant to § 327(a)3 is required when a custodian is excused from compliance with turnover. Mariner argues that § 327 is inapplicable, and thus prior court approval is unnecessary because there are other provisions in the Code which govern compensation for a custodian, namely § 503(b)(3)(E)4 or alternatively, § 543(c)(2).5 The objectors claim that these sections provide only for custodians who have been superseded, that § 327 does apply, and that since employment of professional persons was not sought until April 9, 1990, compensation for such professionals should be denied. The Court agrees with the objectors.
The Code clearly contemplates that in the usual course of events a custodian6 will not remain in possession, as is seen from the language of § 543. Note the mandate in § 543(b) which states that the custodian shall deliver to the trustee any property of the debtor and file an accounting as soon as the custodian acquires knowledge of the case. § 543(b). Compare this with § 543(d)(1), which states that the Court may excuse compliance with turnover.7 Further support for this reading of the Code comes from § 503(b)(3)(E), which allows as an administrative expense, and therefore first priority,8 costs of a superseded custodian.
The Court shall provide for the payment of reasonable compensation for expenses incurred by the custodian in preparation for the turnover. § 543(c)(2). In the usual course of events, the custodian is then superseded by the debtor in possession or a trustee. Once superseded, the custodian is allowed to recover the actual, necessary expenses incurred by such custodian as an administrative expense. § 503(b)(3)(E). Under § 503(b)(4), reasonable compensation for professional services by an attorney or accountant rendered in connection with subparagraph (3) is an administrative expense. The Code indicates that the Court shall allow the superseded custodian to recover the fees and costs incurred, being bound only by the requirement that they be reasonable and necessary.9 Prior court approval is not required if counsel is entitled to compensation by virtue of § 503(b)(4). In re Washington Lane Associates, 79 B.R. 241 (Bankr.E.D. Pa.1987).
This case did not follow the usual course of events as contemplated by the Code because the Court excused compliance with turnover pursuant to § 543(d) and allowed the custodian to remain in possession. The Code does not specifically state how the custodian's fees and expenses are to be treated when excused from compliance with turnover. After going through the statutory scheme for compensation for costs incurred by a custodian, one court stated that "federal law does not anticipate compensation to a receiver's counsel, except to the extent that the receiver's expenses have been allowed in connection with preservation of estate property or by order of the Bankruptcy Court." In the Matter of North Port Development Company, 36 B.R. 19, 21 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1983) (emphasis added). Therefore, the custodian must obtain prior court approval to employ professional persons in order for such professional persons to be compensated.
Once excused from compliance and allowed to remain in possession, a custodian is in the same fiduciary capacity as a trustee or a debtor in possession. A custodian is required, just as a debtor in possession and trustee are, to obtain prior court approval to employ professional persons pursuant to § 327(a). The custodian is required to comply with § 327, certifying in its application that the persons sought to be employed do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that they are disinterested persons. Requiring the custodian who has been excused from compliance with turnover to apply for prior court approval to employ professional persons then preserves the normal safeguards.
The Court therefore finds that a custodian who remains in possession must comply with the Code provisions concerning the employment of professional persons just as the trustee or the debtor in possession. This is true especially for matters which are outside the scope of § 543.10 Section 543 contemplates the allowance as an administrative expense of the costs associated with compliance with turnover. Where, as here, the custodian seeks allowance as an administrative expense those costs associated with resisting turnover, those costs are outside the ambit of § 543 and § 503(b)(3)(E). Compensation and costs under §§ 543(c)(2), 503(b)(3)(E), and 503(b)(4) are restricted to that required for the custodian to fulfill responsibilities under § 543, i.e., preservation, turnover and accounting. In the Matter of North Port Development Company, 36 B.R. 19 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1983); In re Marichal-Agosto, Inc., 12 B.R. 891 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1981). The facts of this case show that the state court-appointed receiver was working in concert with a secured creditor, ABQ Bank, to excuse compliance with turnover. The grounds for the motion to excuse compliance, and the companion motion to appoint trustee filed by ABQ Bank, were to prevent the debtor from continuing to defraud the estate.11 The end result of the motions was that the custodian was left in possession. Where the custodian did not turn anything over to the trustee or the debtor in possession, the custodian is not entitled to compensation from the bankruptcy estate under § 503(b)(3)(E). In re Gherman, 105 B.R. 714 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1989). The custodian must obtain prior court approval to be compensated under other provisions of the Code. Since that was not done, compensation for the custodian will...
To continue reading
Request your trial