Johnson v. Home State Bank

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation111 S.Ct. 2150,501 U.S. 78,115 L.Ed.2d 66
Docket NumberNo. 90-693,90-693
PartiesCurtis Reed JOHNSON, Petitioner v. HOME STATE BANK
Decision Date10 June 1991
Syllabus

After petitioner Johnson defaulted on promissory notes secured with a mortgage on his farm, respondent Home State Bank (Bank) began foreclosure proceedings in state court. While foreclosure proceedings were pending, Johnson filed for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Bankruptcy Court discharged him from personal liability on the notes. However, because the Bank's right to proceed against him in rem survived the bankruptcy, see 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2); Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 6 S.Ct. 917, 29 L.Ed. 1004, the Bank reinitiated the foreclosure proceedings once the automatic stay protecting his estate was lifted. The state court entered judgment for the Bank, but before the foreclosure sale, Johnson filed for reorganization under Chapter 13, listing the mortgage as a claim against his estate. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed his plan to pay the Bank's judgment in installments, but the District Court reversed, ruling that the Code does not allow a debtor to include in a Chapter 13 plan a mortgage used to secure an obligation for which personal liability has been discharged in Chapter 7 proceedings. The court did not reach the Bank's alternative argument that the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding that Johnson had proposed his plan in good faith and that the plan was feasible. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that, since Johnson's personal liability had been discharged, the Bank no longer had a "claim" against Johnson subject to rescheduling under Chapter 13.

Held:

1. A mortgage lien securing an obligation for which a debtor's personal liability has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation is a "claim" within the meaning of § 101(5) and is subject to inclusion in an approved Chapter 13 reorganization plan. Congress intended in § 101(5) to incorporate the broadest available definition of "claim," see Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588. As used in § 101(5), "right to payment" and "right to an equitable remedy" mean "nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation." Id., at ----, 110 S.Ct., at ----. A surviving mortgage interest corresponds to an "enforceable obligation" of the debtor. Even after the debtor's personal obligations have been extinguished, the creditor still retains a "right to payment" in the form of its right to the proceeds from the sale of the debtor's property. Alternatively, the creditor's surviving right to foreclose on the mortgage can be viewed as a "right to an equitable remedy" for the debtor's default on the underlying obligation. Thus, a bankruptcy discharge extinguishes only one mode of enforcing a claim—an in personam action—while leaving intact another—an in rem action. Indeed, the need to codify Long v. Bullard, supra, presupposes that a mortgage interest is a "claim," because only "claims" are discharged. This conclusion is consistent with other parts of the Code—which contemplate circumstances in which a claim may consist of nothing more than a claim against the debtor's property, § 502(b)(1), and establish that the phrase " 'claim against the debtor' includes claim against" the debtor's property, § 102(2) and with the Code's legislative background and history. The Bank's contention that serial filings under Chapters 7 and 13 evade the limits that Congress intended to place on the Chapters' remedies is unpersuasive, since Congress has expressly prohibited various forms of serial filings, see, e.g., § 727(a)(8), yet fashioned no similar prohibition with regard to Chapters 7 and 13 filings. In addition, the full range of Code provisions designed to protect Chapter 13 creditors, see, e.g., § 1325(a), combined with Congress' intent that "claim" be construed broadly, makes it unlikely that Congress intended to use the Code's definition of "claim" to police the Chapter 13 process for abuse. Pp. 82-88.

2. Because the lower courts never addressed the issues of Johnson's good faith or the plan's feasibility, this Court declines to address those issues and leaves them for consideration on remand. P. 88.

904 F.2d 563 (CA10 1990), reversed and remanded.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

W. Thomas Gilman, Wichita, Kan., for petitioner.

Calvin Dee Rider, Wichita, Kan., for respondent.

Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue in this case is whether a debtor can include a mortgage lien in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganization plan once the personal obligation secured by the mortgaged property has been discharged in a Chapter 7 proceeding. We hold that the mortgage lien in such a circumstance remains a "claim" against the debtor that can be rescheduled under Chapter 13.

I

This case arises from the efforts of respondent Home State Bank (Bank) to foreclose a mortgage on the farm property of petitioner. Petitioner gave the mortgage to secure promissory notes to the Bank totaling approximately $470,000.1 When petitioner defaulted on these notes, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in state court. During the pendency of these proceedings, petitioner filed for a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727, the Bankruptcy Court discharged petitioner from personal liability on his promissory notes to the Bank. Notwithstanding the discharge, the Bank's right to proceed against petitioner in rem survived the Chapter 7 liquidation. After the Bankruptcy Court lifted the automatic stay protecting petitioner's estate, see 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Bank reinitiated the foreclosure proceedings.2 Ultimately, the state court entered an in rem judgment of approximately $200,000 for the Bank.

Before the foreclosure sale was scheduled to take place, petitioner filed the Chapter 13 petition at issue here. In his Chapter 13 plan, petitioner listed the Bank's mortgage in the farm property as a claim against his estate and proposed to pay the Bank four annual installments and a final "balloon payment" equal in total value to the Bank's in rem judgment. Over the Bank's objection, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Chapter 13 plan. The Bank appealed to the District Court, arguing that the Code does not allow a debtor to include in a Chapter 13 plan a mortgage used to secure an obligation for which personal liability has been discharged in Chapter 7 proceedings; the Bank argued in the alternative that the Bankruptcy Court had erred in finding that petitioner had proposed the plan in good faith and that the plan was feasible. The District Court accepted the first of these arguments and disposed of the case on that ground. See In re Johnson, 96 B.R. 326, 328-330 (Kan.1989).

The Court of Appeals affirmed. See 904 F.2d 563 (CA10 1990). Emphasizing that petitioner's personal liability on the promissory notes secured by the mortgage had been discharged in the Chapter 7 proceedings, the court reasoned that the Bank no longer had a "claim" against petitioner subject to rescheduling under Chapter 13. See id., at 565, 566. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals disposed of the case without considering the Bank's contentions that Johnson's plan was not in good faith and was not feasible. See id., at 566.

In contrast to the decision of the Tenth Circuit in this case, two other Circuit Courts of Appeals have concluded that a debtor can include a mortgage lien in a Chapter 13 plan even after the debtor's personal liability on the debt secured by the property has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation. See In re Saylors, 869 F.2d 1434, 1436 (CA11 1989); In re Metz, 820 F.2d 1495, 1498 (CA9 1987). Having granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, see 498 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 781, 112 L.Ed.2d 844 (1991), we now reverse.

II

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a reorganization remedy for consumer debtors and proprietors with relatively small debts. See generally H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, pp. 116-119 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6076-6080. So long as a debtor meets the eligibility requirements for relief under Chapter 13, see 11 U.S.C. § 109(e),3 he may submit for the bankruptcy court's confirmation a plan that "modif[ies] the rights of holders of secured claims . . . or . . . unsecured claims," § 1322(b)(2), and that "provide[s] for the payment of all or any part of any [allowed] claim," § 1322(b)(6). The issue in this case is whether a mortgage lien that secures an obligation for which a debtor's personal liability has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation is a "claim" subject to inclusion in an approved Chapter 13 reorganization plan.

To put this question in context, we must first say more about the nature of the mortgage interest that survives a Chapter 7 liquidation. A mortgage is an interest in real property that secures a creditor's right to repayment. But unless the debtor and creditor have provided otherwise, the creditor ordinarily is not limited to foreclosure on the mortgaged property should the debtor default on his obligation; rather, the creditor may in addition sue to establish the debtor's in personam liability for any deficiency on the debt and may enforce any judgment against the debtor's assets generally. See 3 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property ¶ 467 (1990). A defaulting debtor can protect himself from personal liability by obtaining a discharge in a Chapter 7 liquida- tion. See 11 U.S.C. § 727. However, such a discharge extinguishesonly "the personal liability of the debtor." 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(1). Codifying the rule of Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 6 S.Ct. 917, 29 L.Ed. 1004 (1886), the Code provides that a creditor's right to foreclose on the mortgage survives or passes through the bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2); Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1833, ----, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1991); Farrey v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1660 cases
  • In re Miller, Case No.: 11-73935-ast
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 15, 2011
    ...claim, even though the debtor has no personal liability, is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78 (1991), which held that a mortgage lien for which the debtor no longer has personal liability as the result of a chapter 7 discharge is a claim......
  • In re Kilen
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 28, 1991
    ...of the debtor in order to give the debtor the broadest possible relief in the bankruptcy court. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991); Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 2130, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990);......
  • In re Turner
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 16, 2016
    ...the debtor in personam —while leaving intact another—namely, an action against the debtor in rem .” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991) (finding that the in rem rights of a creditor whose debt had been discharged in a prior Chapter 7 proceeding......
  • In re Steeley
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • January 25, 1999
    .......         Alan Levine, for SouthTrust Bank. .          Order Denying the Debtor's Motion to Retain ... Mortgage Company, the creditor secured by a mortgage on the debtor's home. On the same day the Court entered a similar order in favor of SouthTrust ...The Court gave the bank permission to exercise its state law remedies and held that the Thunderbird could not be the subject of any ... Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991); ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Should Underwater Junior Liens Survive Bankruptcy?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 13, 2015
    ...the right to proceed against the property—i.e., foreclose—in the event that the debtor defaults. (5) (citing Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78 (1991)). The Bankruptcy Code refers to the lender's right to proceed against the debtor personally as a 'claim' and refers to the lender's rig......
  • Judgment Claim And Lien Securing It Were Properly Subordinated Under Section 510(b) Of The Bankruptcy Code
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 1, 2022
    ...(In re Elieff), No. 19-ap-01205-ES (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021) (citing 11 U.S.C. ' 101(5) and 510(b); Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84 Kurtin appealed to the BAP. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's Ruling The BAP affirmed. Subordination of Claims. Writing for the panel, U.S. Ba......
  • Changing Views On Pension Plan Loans In Bankruptcy' Is It A "Debt"?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 8, 2022
    ...secured obligations, such as plan loans, are both debts and claims under the Bankruptcy Code. Id. (discussing Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84 (1991)). And this approach has gained traction in one of the nation's busiest bankruptcy courts. The Dubbin ruling highlights two main po......
5 books & journal articles
  • The Last Dance: Righting the Supreme Court's Greatest Bankruptcy Apostasy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...Equality Ethos in Bankruptcy, 30 Am. Bankr. L. Inst. L. Rev 1 (2022). (57) Dewsnup, 502 U.S. at 417- See also Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 85 (1991), wherein the Supreme Court held that the chapter 7 discharge does not eliminate a secured creditor's in rem rights against real pr......
  • An Alternative Approach to the RESPA Versus Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Unpaid Pre-Petition Escrow Amount Debate
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-4, May 2013
    • May 1, 2013
    ...noting that “Congress intended in § 101(5) to incorporate the broadest available definition of ‘claim.’” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83 (1991). 91. Rodriguez II , 629 F.3d at 142. 92. See id. at 140. 93. Id. at 142 (emphasis added). In a strong dissent, however, Judge Sloviter ......
  • The Housing Bubble and Consumer Bankruptcy (Parts I and II).
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 97 No. 2, June 2023
    • June 22, 2023
    ...In re Jarvis, 390 B.R. 600, 605-06 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008). (190) Long v, Bullard, 117 U.S. 617 (1886). (191) Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 US 78, 82-84 (192) [section] 727(a)(2) et seq. (193) Judge Elizabeth Brown asks, "Did Congress not realize that it was creating this wide window of o......
  • Arbitration Agreements as Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy After Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 4, December 2022
    • December 22, 2022
    ...is no longer in effect and the lien has not been avoided, paid, or modified so as to preclude enforcement."); Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 82-3 (1991) ("A defaulting debtor can protect himself from personal liability by obtaining a discharge in a Chapter 7 liquidation. See 11 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT