McInnis v. Phillips (In re Phillips)

Decision Date20 September 2017
Docket NumberADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 14–00125–8–DMW,CASE NO. 12–09022–8–DMW
Citation573 B.R. 626
CourtU.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
Parties IN RE: Bradley Morton PHILLIPS, Susanna G. Phillips, Debtors Sherrill S. McInnis, Plaintiff v. Bradley Morton Phillips, Susanna G. Phillips, Defendants

David Ennis, EnnisColeman, LLP, Wilmington, NC, for Plaintiff.

Christopher A. Chleborowicz, Chleborowicz Law Firm, PLLC, Dean R. Davis, Law Office of Dean R. Davis, Wilmington, NC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

David M. Warren, United States Bankruptcy Judge

The matter before the court is the viability of Sherrill McInnis' Complaint/Motion in Adversary Proceeding and Objection to Discharge ("Complaint") filed by Sherrill S. McInnis ("McInnis") on August 4, 2014 against Bradley Morton Phillips ("B. Phillips") and Susanna G. Phillips (collectively "Phillips"). In their Answer and Defenses ("Answer") filed on October 3, 2014, Phillips defend that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 12(b)(6)"), incorporated by Rule 7012(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The court conducted a hearing on May 17, 2017 in Raleigh, North Carolina. David Paul Ennis, Esq. appeared for McInnis, and Christopher A. Chleborowicz, Esq. and Dean R. Davis, Esq. appeared for Phillips. Based upon the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the court dismisses the Complaint for the reasons set forth herein.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Bankruptcy Case

Phillips filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code1 on December 21, 2012, and Robert R. Browning ("Chapter 13 Trustee") was appointed as interim trustee to administer the case pursuant to § 1302.2 Contemporaneously with the filing of their petition, Phillips filed a Proposed Chapter 13 Plan, and on July 24, 2013, Phillips filed a Proposed Chapter 13 Plan—Amended ("Plan").

On September 10, 2013, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed an Objection to Confirmation and Motion to Dismiss, objecting to confirmation of the Plan and asserting that Phillips' debts exceeded the Chapter 13 debt limitations set forth in § 109(e). On October 7, 2013, McInnis filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Conversion of Chapter 13 Plan by Creditor Sherrill S. McInnis, requesting the court to deny confirmation of the Plan and to dismiss Phillips' Chapter 13 case or alternatively to convert the case to one under Chapter 7.

In response to the Chapter 13 Trustee and to McInnis, on December 2, 2013, Phillips filed a Request to Convert to Chapter 11, requesting the court to convert their case to one under Chapter 11. At a hearing conducted on March 27, 2014, Phillips withdrew their request to convert to Chapter 11 and advised the court that they intended to convert voluntarily their case to one under Chapter 7. On April 29, 2014, Phillips filed a Notice of Conversion of Chapter 7, effectively converting the case to Chapter 7 pursuant to § 1307(a) and Rule 1017(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. On April 30, 2014, the court appointed Walter L. Hinson, Esq. ("Chapter 7 Trustee") to administer the estate pursuant to § 704.

B. Adversary Proceeding

McInnis initiated this adversary proceeding when she filed the Complaint. The Complaint contains two specific claims for relief: dismissal of Phillips' Chapter 7 case pursuant to § 707(b) ("§ 707 Claim") and avoidance of a transfer as fraudulent pursuant to § 548(a)(1)(A) ("§ 548 Claim").3 With respect to the § 548 Claim, the Complaint's prayer for relief requests the court to enter "a money judgment against the [Phillips] in the amount of at least twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) on the account of the avoidance of the Transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548, 550, and 551... with such recovery being for the benefit of the [Phillips'] estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548, 550, and 551."

The Complaint's opening paragraph indicates that McInnis intended to object to Phillips' discharge pursuant to §§ 523 and 727. The Complaint does not contain a claim for relief under either of these statutory provisions; however, the Complaint's prayer for relief includes a request that the court deny Phillips a discharge of their debts to McInnis pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) ("§ 523 Claim").

The Rule 12(b)(6) defense set forth in Phillips' Answer was noted upon the court's docket as a Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding ("Motion to Dismiss"); however, Phillips did not request a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, and the court did not autonomously set one. In the Motion to Dismiss, Phillips asserted generally that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and specifically that the § 548 Claim should be dismissed for lack of standing ("Standing Defense").

On August 28, 2015, the court entered an Order Holding Proceeding in Abeyance, which ordered that this adversary proceeding be suspended until a final resolution by either of the following: (1) litigation between McInnis and Phillips ("State Court Action")4 that was pending in the New Hanover County Superior Court ("State Court") at the time of Phillips' bankruptcy petition; or (2) a related adversary proceeding initiated by the Chapter 7 Trustee. The State Court Action is more fully described infra and included a counterclaim similar to the § 548 Claim but based upon state law.

At a Status Conference conducted on August 15, 2016, the parties advised the court that McInnis dismissed an appeal in the State Court Action, making the matter fully adjudicated; therefore, the court could move forward to resolve McInnis' claims in this adversary proceeding. Phillips contended, and McInnis disagreed, that final resolution of a counterclaim within the State Court Action had a res judicata effect upon the § 548 Claim ("Res Judicata Defense").

On August 19, 2016, the court entered a Scheduling Order for Submission of Memoranda of Law which directed the parties to file memoranda in support of their respective positions on the Res Judicata Defense. After reviewing the memoranda and applicable law, the court determined that it should first assess the previously asserted Standing Defense, because if Phillips prevail on the Standing Defense, then resolution of the Res Judicata Defense becomes unnecessary. On March 8, 2017, the court entered an Order Scheduling Hearing on [Phillips'] Motion to Dismiss which scheduled a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss as set forth in the Answer, as well as the newly asserted Res Judicata Defense.

II. RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD OF CONSIDERATION

Rule 12(b)(6) provides a defense to a claim for a relief for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(b). A Rule 12(b)(6) request to dismiss "challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, considered with the assumption that the facts alleged are true" Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Jordan v. Alt. Res. Corp. , 458 F.3d 332, 338 (4th Cir. 2006) ; E. Shores Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'Ship , 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000) ). "In considering a motion to dismiss, the court should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari , 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court "must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. , 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2509, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that "[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS

This adversary proceeding culminates a lengthy Hatfield–McCoy type of feud between the parties that has spanned many years and been the subject of numerous court proceedings; however, for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss, the court may only consider the factual allegations contained within the pages of the Complaint, including incorporated documents, and facts derived from the records of Phillips' bankruptcy case and the State Court Action of which the court may take judicial notice.

A. Allegations in the Complaint 5
1. Phillips' Indebtedness to McInnis

In 2005, Pages Creek Marine Services, Inc. ("Pages Creek") entered into an agreement to purchase from McInnis and Philip K. McInnis, Jr. ("P. McInnis")6 all of the stock of Francis–Kilmer Corporation, and Pages Creek executed a promissory note ("Note") in favor of McInnis and P. McInnis in the original principal amount of $337,500.00. Phillips, who were the principals of Pages Creek, guaranteed payment by Pages Creek under the terms of the Note. The Note was secured by security interest in the common stock of Francis–Kilmer Corporation, plus all of the business's inventory, furnishings, tools, fixtures, and equipment.

In 2008, Pages Creek entered into a commercial lease agreement ("Lease") with McInnis and P. McInnis, as trustees of the McInnis Family Living Trust, for the lease of real property in New Hanover County used as Pages Creek's business premises. Phillips guaranteed Pages Creek's performance under the Lease.

Pages Creek defaulted in its obligations under the Note and the Lease. On December 15, 2011, the State Court entered an Order ("Judgment") whic...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Essangui v. SLF V-2015 Trust (In re Essangui)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Maryland
    • October 2, 2017
    ...that is eligible to offer programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This amendment provided somewhat parallel 573 B.R. 626treatment for both public and private educational loans. Notably, the addition of subsection (B) is the only amendment to section 523(a)(8) mentioned ......
  • In re Durant
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Maryland
    • June 19, 2018
    ...the totality of the circumstances suggests that the filing is abusive. 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3) ; see also McInnis v. Phillips (In re Phillips) , 573 B.R. 626, 636 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. 2017) (explaining totality of the circumstances test invoked by courts in this Circuit). Before conducting any s......
  • Amore v. Ridgely (In re Doc's Truck Ctr.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • September 13, 2021
    ...of avoidance actions, two sister bankruptcy courts in the Fourth Circuit have viewed derivative standing with skepticism. See Phillips, 573 B.R. at 640-41; CHN Constr., LLC, 531 B.R. at 133 ("The finds that derivative standing is not appropriate in chapter 7 cases."). In denying a creditor ......
  • Lieberman v. Mason (In re Mason)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Third Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 28, 2020
    ...The mere fact that Mrs. Mason guaranteed the loans does not ipso facto constitute a fraudulent statement. See In re Phillips, 573 B.R. 626, 645 (Bankr.E.D.N.C. 2017) (stating that debt based on guaranty does not constitute nondischargeable fraud); In re Gaddy, 2018 WL 10345329, at *8 (Bankr......

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