In re Ross, 39571.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 39571.,39571. |
| Parties | In re ROSS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Shapro & Rothschild, San Francisco, Cal., for trustee.
Weinstock, Anderson & Chase, Harold J. Chase, San Francisco, Cal., J. Richard Glade, H. Harold Leavey, Sacramento, Cal., for claimant, California Western States Life Ins. Co.
California Western States Life Insurance Co. has petitioned for a review of the order of the Referee in Bankruptcy disallowing priority for a claim which it filed against the bankrupt estate as the assignee of a wage claimant. The issue has been submitted to the Court, as it was to the Referee, upon an agreed statement of facts.
Claimant was the insurer under a policy of Unemployment Disability Insurance covering the employees of the bankrupt. The policy was issued pursuant to a Voluntary plan of disability insurance entered into by the bankrupt and his employees in accordance with the provisions of the California Unemployment Insurance Act. Act 8780d, Deering's California General Laws. The Voluntary Plan provided that the bankrupt should deduct from the wages of each employee 1% of the first $3,000 earned in any calendar year and transmit such sum to claimant in payment of the premium on its policy. During the effective period of the Voluntary Plan from April 1, 1947 to December 31, 1950, each new employee of the bankrupt consented in writing to the Plan and to the wage deduction. During this same period, the bankrupt deducted the agreed amounts from his employees' wages and transmitted them to claimant, except that, having made deductions of $24.48 for the months of October, November, and December, 1950, he failed to transmit that sum to claimant. The $24.48 was earned by the bankrupt's employees within three months immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding in bankruptcy.
Upon these facts, claimant asserts, under Section 64 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, a priority claim of $24.48 as the assignee of wages due the bankrupt's employees. It is settled law that a bona fide assignee of a wage claim is entitled, under Section 64, to the same priority of payment as the wage earner. Shropshire, Woodliff & Co. v. Bush, 1907, 204 U.S. 186, 27 S. Ct. 178, 51 L.Ed. 436. It is also clear that, under California law, an effective assignment may be made of wages to be earned under an existing employment. Walker v. Rich, 1926, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56. Wage assignments, in the form of requests to employers to make deductions for the payment of disability insurance premiums, are expressly recognized by statute, California Labor Code § 300.
Nevertheless, it is the Trustee's contention,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc
...would be within the general clause had the exception not been made * * *.' 13. See In re Otto, D.C., 146 F.Supp. 786, 790; In re Ross, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 346. 14 The Court notes that workmen's compensation claims were at one time given priority by Congress and were subsequently removed. As c......
-
In re Otto
...9 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 402; and disability insurance premiums deducted by the employer and paid to an insurance company, In re Ross, D.C.N.D. Cal.1953, 117 F.Supp. 346. An employer's contributions to a welfare fund for the benefit of employees and others, payable in performance of an obliga......
-
Local 140 Security Fund v. Hack
...for payments to Welfare Funds. Some contain an assignment of a portion of the workmen's wages as a payment to the Welfare Fund. In re Ross, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 346. There is a sound basis for a claim of priority by the assignee, the Welfare Fund, in such a case,5 although the determination of......
-
Matter of Shearon, Bankruptcy No. BK80-197.
...and subject to the 90-day limitation. See, e.g., Bowman v. Bay Area Painters Trust Fund, 447 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1971); In re Ross, 117 F.Supp. 346 (N.D.Cal.1953). The trustee argues that the sole purpose of the fourth priority was to overrule United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc., 359 ......