Layng v. Pansier (In re Pansier)
Decision Date | 17 January 2020 |
Docket Number | Adversary No. 18-2222,Case No. 18-22297-beh |
Citation | 613 B.R. 119 |
Parties | IN RE: Gary L. PANSIER and Joan R. Pansier, Debtors. Patrick S. Layng, Plaintiff, v. Gary L. Pansier and Joan R. Pansier, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Laura D. Steele, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff.
Gary L. Pansier, pro se.
Joan R. Pansier, pro se.
DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Starting several decades before they filed their third joint bankruptcy case, the debtors sought out ways to protect their assets. Over the years, but particularly since their last bankruptcy case, they have established a head-spinning sequence of trusts and an LLC into which they transferred their home, personal property, and monthly income.
Among the problems with this strategy were that the debtors continued living in the home, exercising control over the trust property and income as if they were the beneficiaries, or as if there were no trusts (of whatever stripe) in place. Another problem is that the debtors did not list their interests in each of these trusts and the LLC (and the related bank accounts) on their bankruptcy schedules. Those revelations came to light only months later, on the eve of their Rule 2004 examinations, and then after further document discovery.
Mr. Pansier is a retired airline pilot, with a bachelor's degree. Mrs. Pansier is a retired airline attendant and has an executive law degree. They are not unsophisticated, and they are experienced litigants.1
The United States Trustee filed an adversary complaint seeking denial of the debtors' discharges based on concealment of assets, failure to maintain adequate books and records, false oaths, and failure to explain a loss or diminution of assets.2 The U.S. Trustee has moved for summary judgment on all four causes of action asserted in the complaint, which the debtors oppose. Based on a review of the entire docket, the briefing and oral argument, the Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to two of the causes of action asserted. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment to the United States Trustee on Count I (section 727(a)(2), concealment of assets) and Count III (section 727(a)(4)(A), false oath) of the complaint. The Court denies summary judgment as to Counts II and IV of the complaint.
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Eastern District of Wisconsin's July 16, 1984, order of reference entered under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J). This decision constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052.
According to the exhibits of record and the parties' briefing and oral argument, the following facts are either undisputed, or not subject to genuine dispute.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barbknecht Firm, P.C. v. Keese (In re Keese)
...requires the distinctive element that the challenged transfer or concealment be a post-bankruptcy event. Layng v. Pansier (In re Pansier), 613 B.R. 119, 144(Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2020); Moore v Sanchez (In re Sanchez), 2020 WL 4577113, at *5 (Bankr. D.N.M. Aug. 7, 2020).151. The term "concealmen......
-
WiscTex, LLC v. Galesky (In re Galesky)
...Here, Galesky failed to adequate [sic] keep records without justification." Pl.’s Closing Arg. at 12 (citation omitted) (citing Pansier , 613 B.R. at 156 ). Nowhere in either of its post-trial briefs does WiscTex identify any records that Galesky failed to keep or preserve, with or without ......
- In re Jackson
-
Swanson v. Pansier (In re Pansier)
...and enter access code 9122579 before the scheduled hearing time. 12 --------- Notes: [1] See Layng v. Pansier (In re Pansier), 613 B.R. 119 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2020). [2] Mrs. Pansier filed her bankruptcy petition jointly with Gary Pansier on March 19, 2018. See Case No. 18-22297, ECF No. 1. ......