Spring Valley Farms, Inc., In re
Decision Date | 17 January 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-7121,88-7121 |
Citation | 863 F.2d 832 |
Parties | , 21 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 651, 18 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1250, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,654 In re SPRING VALLEY FARMS, INC., Debtor. SPRING VALLEY FARMS, INC., and Spring Valley Foods, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bessie Keeling CROW, an individual; Van B. Keeling, etc., and Charles Wayne Crow, etc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
James S. Sledge, Inzer, Suttle, Swann & Stivender, P.A., Gadsden, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
George White, Gadsden, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before JOHNSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and VINSON *, District Judge.
I. FACTS
In this case the district court granted summary judgment in favor of creditors on motions to determine whether their claims had been discharged in bankruptcy and to amend their complaint. 85 B.R. 593 (N.D.Ala.1988). We affirm.
In July 1980, Bessie Crow and her neighbors brought suit against Spring Valley Farms seeking damages for the nuisance allegedly created by its chicken processing operations. In November 1982, Spring Valley Farms and a closely related corporation, Spring Valley Foods (collectively "Spring Valley defendants"), filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina. Plaintiffs never received any official notice of any sort from the bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs did, however, have actual knowledge of the existence of the bankruptcy proceedings from a letter mailed by the Spring Valley defendants' attorney to plaintiffs' attorney. The Spring Valley defendants' attorney also mailed a letter to Crow individually, in care of plaintiffs' attorney, notifying her that her claim had been scheduled as contingent, disputed, or liquidated. With the exception of Crow, plaintiffs' claims were not scheduled with the bankruptcy court. 1
Plaintiffs never filed any proofs of claim with the North Carolina bankruptcy court, nor did they otherwise participate in proceedings there. On August 20, 1984, the Spring Valley defendants' debts were discharged in accordance with 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1141. Plaintiffs' lawsuit was removed by Spring Valley Farms to bankruptcy court in Alabama in October 1985. On January 16, 1986, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add Spring Valley Foods as a defendant. The Spring Valley defendants opposed the motion and moved for a finding that any debts owing from causes of action arising before the August 20, 1984 bar date were discharged. The Alabama bankruptcy court found that the debts were not discharged and permitted plaintiffs to add Spring Valley Foods as a defendant. The district court affirmed.
II. DISCUSSION
The Spring Valley defendants argue that this case is controlled by In re Alton, 837 F.2d 457 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam ). In Alton, this Court held that in order to avoid the discharge of its debt, a creditor with knowledge of the debtor's initiation of bankruptcy proceedings was obligated to file a proof of claim, even though he had received no notice of the bar date for filing such a claim.
The Court in Alton based its decision on 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 523(a)(3)(B) which states:
(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt--
(3) neither listed nor scheduled under section 521(1) of this title, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit-- (A) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim ... unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing ...
(emphasis added). The Court held that Sec. 523(a)(3) places a burden of inquiry upon a creditor with actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a proof of claim. See also Neeley v. Murchison, 815 F.2d 345, 347 (5th Cir.1987) ( ); cf. In re Rhodes, 61 B.R. 626, 630 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) ( ).
However, Section 523 is not applicable in this case. The Spring Valley defendants are corporate debtors. Section 523(a)(3) places a burden of inquiry upon a creditor only when the debtor is an "individual debtor." A corporate debtor is not an individual debtor for the purposes of Section 523. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Shadco, Inc., 762 F.2d 668, 670 (8th Cir.1985) ( )(citing In re Kuempel Co., 14 B.R. 324, 325 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1981)); In re Push & Pull Enter., Inc., 84 B.R. 546, 548 (N.D.Ind.1988) (); Collier on Bankruptcy, Sec. 523.04 at 523-11 (1988).
Defendants argue that even if Section 523 does not apply, any debts arising from plaintiffs' nuisance claims were extinguished by operation of Section 1141(d)(1)(A) ( ). Section 1141(d)(1)(A) seems to provide unequivocal discharge. However, plaintiffs argue that the statute cannot authorize the discharge of a debt in violation of due process. Plaintiffs claim their failure to receive notice under Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(8) ( ), constituted such a violation.
Considerable support exists for plaintiffs' assertion that due process prevents Section 1141 from being read to extinguish their claims when no notice of the bar date for filing a proof of claim has been sent in compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(8). See Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp., 839 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th Cir.1987) ( ); Reliable Elec. Co., Inc. v. Olson Const. Co., 726 F.2d 620, 622-23 (10th Cir.1984) ( ). Relevant case law also exists under the former Bankruptcy Code. See City of New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 73 S.Ct. 299, 97 L.Ed. 333 (1953) ( ); In re Intaco Puerto Rico, Inc., 494 F.2d 94, 99 (1st Cir.1974) (); In re Harbor Tank Storage, 385 F.2d 111, 115 (3d Cir.1967) ().
Under the current Bankruptcy Code, Rule 2002(a)(8), as under the former code, 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 205(c)(8) (repealed 1978), plaintiffs were entitled to notice of the bar date. Although plaintiffs had actual notice of Spring Valley Farms' bankruptcy, they were never apprised of the bar date for filing a proof of claim. The Court in City of New York construed the former bankruptcy code which required the bankruptcy court to provide "reasonable notice of the period in which claims may be filed." 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 205(c)(8) (repealed 1978). It held that New York City's actual knowledge of the debtor railroad's bankruptcy proceedings could not take the place of the official notice required by the Bankruptcy Code. The Court stated:
Nor can the bar order against New York be sustained because of the city's knowledge that reorganization of the railroad was taking place in the court. The argument is that such knowledge puts a duty on creditors to inquire for themselves about possible court orders limiting the time for filing claims. But even creditors who have knowledge of a reorganization have a right to assume that the statutory "reasonable notice" will be given them before their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Confidential Investigative Consultants, Inc.
...discharge would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and have thus refused to permit it. See In re Spring Valley Farms, Inc., 863 F.2d 832 (11th Cir.1989); In re Dartmoor Homes, Inc., 175 B.R. 659, 663-64, 668-69, 669-70 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.) (Ginsberg, J.); 5 Collier on Bankrup......
-
In re Spenlinhauer
...Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Rogers (Eagle Bus. Mfg., Inc.), 62 F.3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 1995) ; Spring Valley Farms, Inc. v. Crow (In re Spring Valley Farms, Inc.), 863 F.2d 832, 834–35 (11th Cir.1989). See also Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Sharon Steel Corp. (In re Sharon Steel Corp.), 110 B.R. 2......
-
In re Spenlinhauer
...Lines, Inc. v. Rogers (Eagle Bus. Mfg., Inc.), 62 F.3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 1995) ; Spring Valley Farms, Inc. v. Crow (In re Spring Valley Farms, Inc.), 863 F.2d 832, 834–35 (11th Cir.1989). See alsoAtlantic Richfield Co. v. Sharon Steel Corp. (In re Sharon Steel Corp.), 110 B.R. 205, 207–08 ......
-
Hawker Beechcraft, Inc. v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
...Dep't Stores, Inc., 173 B.R. 840, 842 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (“§ 523 only applies to individual debtors.”) (citing In re Spring Valley Farms Inc., 863 F.2d 832, 834 (11th Cir.1989)); In re Automatic Plating of Bridgeport, Inc., 202 B.R. 540, 542 (Bankr.D.Conn.1996) (“In this circuit, it is well set......
-
CHAPTER 2 TINKERBELLE, THE CRUDE PEOPLE AND THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
...re Maya Constr. Co.), 78 F.3d 1395 (9th Cir. 1996); see also In re Unioil, 948 F.2d 678 (10th Cir. 1991); In re Spring Valley Farms, Inc., 863 F.2d 832 (11th Cir. 1989). [102] Broomall Indus., Inc. v. Data Design Logic Sys., Inc., 786 F.2d 401 (Fed. Cir. 1986). [103] See In re Brooks Fashio......