Rogers v. Freeman (In re Freeman)
Decision Date | 06 March 2015 |
Docket Number | CASE NUMBER NO. 09–12732–WHD |
Citation | 527 B.R. 780 |
Parties | In the Matter of: Anthony B. Freeman, Debtor. Beth E. Rogers and BER Law P.C. d/b/a Rogers Law Offices, Movant. v. Anthony B. Freeman, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Lee A. Frison Jr., Lee A. Frison Jr. PC, Atlanta, GA, for Debtor.
W. Homer Drake, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge
The above-styled case comes before the Court on Objection to Debtor's Property Claimed as Exempt (hereinafter the “Objection”), filed by Beth E. Rogers and BER Law Offices (hereinafter “Rogers”). Rogers seeks an order from the Court declaring that certain funds, currently held by Anthony B. Freeman (hereinafter the “Debtor”) in a State Farm retirement account, are property of the Debtor's Chapter 7 estate and cannot be claimed exempt under the Bankruptcy Code1 and applicable state law. The Debtor opposes Rogers' request. Following a hearing held on December 3, 2014, the Court instructed the parties to file briefs by January 5, 2015. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1334, as a core proceeding defined under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) & (B).
The relevant facts of this case are undisputed.2 Accordingly, the Court finds the following:
Rogers argues that funds received by the Debtor while a debtor in possession, including the Severance Income, the 2010 Bonus Income, and the 2011 Bonus Income, became and remained property of the bankruptcy estate and cannot be claimed as exempt. In support of this position, Rogers submits that the bankruptcy estate was established upon the filing of the petition, the estate acquired property during its pendency in Chapter 11, the acquired property flowed through to the Chapter 7 estate upon conversion, and the acquired property retained its initial character, rendering it ineligible for exemption. In response, the Debtor in effect argues that the estate reset upon conversion and that property of the estate is determined by looking to the date of the filing of the petition. Under the Debtor's theory, the Chapter 7 estate cannot be augmented by sections of the Code, which may have been applicable in Chapter 11, that are no longer applicable now that the case resides in Chapter 7; consequently, the Debtor believes that, since all the property in question came into the estate post-petition, none of it is property of the estate for which an exemption would be necessary.
As is often the case, the answer lies somewhere between the two positions. As discussed further below, the Court finds that: (1) the Severance Income became property of the estate upon the filing of the Chapter 11 case and the 2010 Bonus Income became property of the estate upon its being earned by the Debtor, but both of these property interests vested in the Debtor upon confirmation of the Plan and did not revest in the bankruptcy estate upon conversion of the case to Chapter 7; and (2) the 2011 Bonus Income became property of the estate upon its being earned by the Debtor post-confirmation and remained property of the estate upon conversion of the case to Chapter 7. The Court also concludes that, although the Debtor may be entitled to exempt a portion of the 2011 Bonus Income, the currently claimed exemption is defective. Accordingly, the Court sustains in part Rogers' objection to the exemption, subject to the Debtor's right to amend Schedule C to claim a proper exemption.
Two happenings are pivotal to determining the outcome of this case: the confirmation of the Chapter 11 Plan and the conversion of this case to Chapter 7. For organizational purposes, the Court shall first analyze the effect of confirmation on property of the estate.
It is settled law that once a bankruptcy case is commenced, property owned by the debtor is distinct from property that becomes part of the bankruptcy estate. In re Floyd, 423 B.R. 579, 581 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.2009) (quoting In re Bell, 225 F.3d 203, 215 (2d Cir.2000) ). Section 1141 provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided for in the plan or the order confirming the plan, the confirmation of a plan vests all of the property of the estate in the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 1141(b). Despite the apparently clear language, there is a split of authority as to whether the post-confirmation conversion of a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 “revests” property of the debtor in the Chapter 7 estate. Judge Isicoff thoroughly summarized this debate in In re Sundale, Ltd . :
To continue reading
Request your trial- United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Res., LLC (In re Otero Cnty. Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.)
-
In re Johnson
...Chapter 11 case but prior to its conversion to Chapter 7 constitutes property of the Chapter 7 estate. See Rogers v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 527 B.R. 780, 789–97 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2015)(discussing cases on both side of the issue before holding that income earned by a Chapter 11 debtor after th......
-
Meier v. Katz (In re Meier)
...along? No circuit court has addressed this question to date, and the lower courts that have are split. Compare In Matter of Freeman , 527 B.R. 780, 789–97 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2015) (holding that post-petition earnings by an individual debtor in Chapter 11 remain part of the estate after conversio......
-
In re Lincoln
...applicable to all case conversions, including those from chapter 11 to chapter 7.18 This Court disagrees with Markosian, finding persuasive Rogers v. Freeman (In re Freeman),19 which held:It could be argued that Congress' failure to apply Section 348(f) to Chapter 11 was not intentional, fo......
-
A Guide to the Small Business Reorganisation Act of 2019.
...ed. 2019-20 Supp.). (286) E.g., In re Copeland, 609 B.R. 834 (D. Ariz. 2019); In re Meier, 550 B.R. 384 (N.D. 111. 2016); In re Freeman, 527 B.R. 780 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2015); In re Hoyle, No. 10-01484, 2013 WL 3294273 (Bankr. D. Idaho June 28, 2013); In re Tolkin, No. 808-72583-REG, 2011 WL ......
-
Chapter 6 Hot-Button Issues for Creditors' Counsel
...Feb. 8, 2017); In re Meier, 550 B.R. 384 (N.D. Ill. 2016); In re Gorniak, 549 B.R. 721, 724 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2016); In Matter of Freeman, 527 B.R. 780 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2015).[282] Lincoln, No. 16-12650, 2017 WL 535259 at *2. ...