Rutledge v. Johansen
| Decision Date | 12 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 6075.,6075. |
| Citation | 270 F.2d 881 |
| Parties | William E. RUTLEDGE, Trustee of the Estate of Jackson Mortimer Nafe, a Bankrupt, Appellant, v. C. R. JOHANSEN and Jane Johansen, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
F. Paul Thieman, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.
John R. Richards, Tulsa, Okl. (Joe B. Houston, Gerald B. Klein, R. L. Davidson, Jr., and Jack Fine, Tulsa, Okl., were with him on the brief), for appellees.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Jackson Mortimer Nafe, brought this action to recover property which Nafe transferred to appellee for an antecedent debt within four months preceding bankruptcy. At the time of the transfer, the property was Nafe's Oklahoma homestead. The transfer was voluntary and without fraud, and no exemption therefor was claimed in Nafe's bankruptcy schedule.
The trial court found that all requisites of a voidable preference as stated in Section 60, subs. a and b of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, 64 Stat. 24, were present, but held the preference nonvoidable because the property transferred was exempt under Oklahoma law. See Oklahoma Const. Art. 12, § 2; 31 O.S.A. § 1. The sole question on appeal is the correctness of this holding.
The trial court's judgment is directly supported by textbook law to the effect that "a transfer of exempt property of a debtor, though it is to a creditor and to apply on an antecedent indebtedness, does not give rise to a voidable preference." Remington on Bankruptcy, Vol. 4, § 1678. See also Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed., Vol. 3, § 60.25. The statement is grounded in the legal concept that property exempt by law remains in the bankrupt, does not pass to the trustee, and the bankrupt's disposition of it prior to bankruptcy is therefore of no concern to the trustee or the creditors he represents. See Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U.S. 294, 23 S.Ct. 751, 47 L.Ed. 1061; First National Bank of Cleveland v. Orten, 43 Okl. 325, 142 P. 1096; Annotation, 161 A.L.R. 1013-1018.
Without directly contending against this rule, the appellant takes the position that the effect of the trial court's judgment is to permit the transferee of the property to exercise an exemption which is personal to the transferrer and non-transferable. And, of course exemption rights are personal to the bankrupt and can be exercised by him alone. But even so, if the bankrupt had the right to transfer his exempt property prior to bankruptcy without committing a voidable preference, there were no exemption rights to be exercised in bankruptcy, and appellant's argument must therefore fail.
It is true that exemption rights are determinable as of the date of the filing in bankruptcy (see White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310, 45 S.Ct. 103, 69 L.Ed. 301), and that the trustee shall "set apart the bankrupts' exemptions allowed by law, if claimed * * *." Section 47, sub. a(6), 11 U.S.C.A. § 75, sub. a(6). And, the bankrupt shall file "a claim for such exemptions as he may be entitled to * * *." Section 7, sub. a(8). It has been suggested that "affirmative steps must be taken, both by the bankrupt and by those administering the bankruptcy estate, before exempt property can be allowed to the bankrupt." Gardner v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 717, 720.
While there is much to be said for confining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Myers
...fraud of creditors is the thing to be tried in this case." (Emphasis added.) Bankrupt further relies on the cases of Rutledge v. Johansen, 270 F.2d 881 (10th Cir. 1959) and In re Hausman, 209 F.Supp. 219 (D.C.Ga.1962) in support of her claim to a homestead exemption. These additional cases ......
-
In re Hygrade Envelope Corp.
...accorded by § 6 since the estate otherwise available to creditors will not be diminished by the assignment. See Rutledge v. Johansen, 270 F.2d 881, 883 (10 Cir. 1959); 1 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 6.11 (1967). On the face of things, it would seem incongruous that a policy not exempt in the bankr......
-
In re Hygrade Envelope Corp.
...of property exempt in the hands of the bankrupt may retain it even if it otherwise would be a preference. See Rutledge v. Johansen, 270 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1959) (transfer by bankrupt of exempt homestead); In re Rubin, 29 F. Supp. 416, 418 (S.D.N.Y.1939) (transfer of exempt insurance p......
-
Lubin v. Mason (In re Mason)
...may claim only those exemptions available at the time of the bankruptcy petition filing")(citations omitted); Rutledge v. Johansen , 270 F.2d 881, 882 (10th Cir. 1959) ("it is true that exemption rights are determinable as of the date of the filing in bankruptcy")(citing White, supra ).5 Th......
-
Dana Yankowitz, "i Could Have Exempted it Anyway": Can a Trustee Avoid a Debtor's Prepetition Transfer of Exemptible Property?
...& Quincy R.R. Co. v. Hall, 229 U.S. 511, 515 (1913). 40 See id. 41 190 U.S. 294, 299-300 (1903). 42 See, e.g., Rutledge v. Johansen, 270 F.2d 881, 882 (10th Cir. 1959); Baumbaugh v. L.A. Morris Plan Co. (In re Frank), 30 F.2d 816, 816 (9th Cir. 1929) ("It is therefore of no concern to the g......