Mesa Farm Company v. United States, 71-1121.
Decision Date | 09 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1121.,71-1121. |
Citation | 475 F.2d 1004 |
Parties | In the Matter of MESA FARM COMPANY, a partnership composed of James V. Pettitt and George W. Ross, Bankrupt No. 110092, and Mesa Farms, Inc., a California corporation, Bankrupt No. 110091, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Henry Cohen (argued), Burlingame, Cal., for appellants.
Anthony J. Steinmeiyer, Atty. (argued), Alan S. Rosenthal, Morton Hollander, Leonard Schaitman, Attys., L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge*.
Mesa Farm Company and Mesa Farms, Inc., appeal from a denial by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of a petition for review of the Referee in Bankruptcy's order directing them to pay an additional $22,200 into the Referees' Salary and Expense Fund (hereinafter Fund).
The sole issue presented is a question of first impression, to wit: whether the Judicial Conference of the United States validly promulgated a rule requiring that payment made to the Fund be based upon the fair market value of all assets coming into the bankrupt's estate, irrespective of whether such property is liquidated in the estate by the trustee. We uphold the rule's validity and affirm.
In June, 1968, Mesa Farm Company and Mesa Farms, Inc. each filed a petition for arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act.1 When no arrangement was consummated, both consented to an adjudication in bankruptcy.
The facts relevant to the instant proceeding were submitted to the District Court on an Agreed Statement of Facts:
The dismissed bankrupts, appellants herein, paid into the Fund $4,750.00, the amount which would have been owed if the fees were based solely upon the $225,000.00 received from the Echenique Ranch leasehold. The referee held, however, that under a rule of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the payment to the Fund must be based upon $1,335,000.00, i.e., the fair market value of all assets coming into the hands of the trustee. Such assets included the $1,050,000.00 received for the Mahoney Ranch and the $60,000.00 received for the machinery and equipment subsequent to bankruptcy dismissal, in addition to the $225,000.00 received for the leasehold in the bankruptcy proceeding. Accordingly, the referee ordered appellants to pay an additional $22,200.00 into the Fund.
Appellants petitioned the District Court for review of the referee's order, contending that the Conference rule was invalid.2 The petition was denied and this appeal followed.
Section 40c(2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 68(c)(2)(a), provides:
"(2) Additional fees for the referees\' salary and expense fund shall be charged, in accordance with the schedule fixed by the conference (a) against each estate wholly or partially liquidated in a bankruptcy proceeding, and be computed upon the net proceeds realized * * *." (emphasis added)
Section 40c(2)(c) provides in pertinent part:
"The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, with the approval of the Judicial Conference, may make, and from time to time amend, rules and regulations prescribing methods for determining net proceeds realized in asset cases * * *."
The Judicial Conference promulgated the following rule with reference to determining "net proceeds realized":3
Appellants contend that the Judicial Conference has exceeded its statutory authority as delegated in section 40c(2)(c) by defining "net proceeds realized" to include the fair market value of all property coming into the hands of the trustee in bankruptcy for the purposes of computing amounts due to the Fund, whether or not such property is liquidated in the estate by the trustee.
They urge that the phrase "net proceeds realized" necessarily imports a concept of the result of the sale or liquidation efforts. Specifically, appellants claim "net proceeds realized" refer to those proceeds realized by the trustee only as a result of a liquidation of assets in the bankruptcy proceedings.4
In Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965), the Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review that courts must employ when faced with problems of statutory construction:5
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Purdy
... ... United States of America, Intervenor/Defendant ... 50 (5th Cir. 1981); Mesa Farm Company v. United States, 475 F.2d 1004 ... ...
-
Fidelity Mortg. Investors, In re
...that there should be a filing fee, plus additional fees based in substance upon the size of the estate, Mesa Farm Co. v. United States, 475 F.2d 1004, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 1973). The additional fees were to be fixed in such a manner that the total annual fees collected would approximate the to......
-
Southwestern Media, Inc. v. Rau
... ... No. 81-5918 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Ninth Circuit ... Sec. 68(c)(2) (1976), see Mesa Farm Co. v. United States, 475 F.2d 1004, 1007-08 ... ...
-
In re Bradford
...A litigant instituting a civil action in District Court or Bankruptcy Court must pay a $60 filing fee. In Mesa Farm Company v. United States, 475 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir. 1973), the Court of Appeals upheld the Conference's interpretation of "net proceeds realized." The Mesa court applied, as doe......