Wudrick v. Clements, 25449
| Decision Date | 26 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25449,25537.,25449 |
| Citation | 451 F.2d 988 |
| Parties | Kenneth G. WUDRICK, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. Richard R. CLEMENTS, Trustee, Appellee. In the Matter of James E. ROON and Vivienne O. Roon, Bankrupts. Carlyle MICHELMAN, Trustee, Appellant, v. James E. ROON and Vivienne O. Roon, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Lawrence Diamant (argued), Herbert Wolas, Robinson, Wolas & Hagen, Los Angeles, Cal., for Carlyle Michelman and Richard R. Clements.
David Gill (argued), of Danning & Gill, Sherman Oaks, Cal., for James E. and Vivienne O. Roon.
Andrew F. Leoni (argued), of Slate & Leoni, Los Angeles, Cal., for Kenneth G. Wudrick.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
When bankruptcy appeared inevitable, Mr. and Mrs. Roon consulted experienced bankruptcy counsel. One of the things they did on his advice to enhance their exemptions was to refinance their 1966 Chevrolet. The bank loaned them $2,325 on the car. From this amount they paid off the previous car loan and their attorney's fees, and deposited $800 in the Union Federal Savings & Loan Association. They then filed petitions in bankruptcy. They claimed that the $800 account was exempt from execution under California Code of Civil Procedure § 690.21 and was therefore exempt under section 6 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 24, though the automobile would not have been. The exemption was allowed by the Referee and upheld by the district court, 305 F.Supp. 1123.
Wudrick's case is very similar: On the advice of bankruptcy counsel and in order to maximize his exemptions, he obtained a $2,197 loan from a finance company on two previously unencumbered vehicles about three weeks before filing his petition in bankruptcy. He put $1,300 in shares of the St. Joseph's Children Employees' Federal Credit Union, exempt from execution under California Financial Code § 15406.1. His subsequent claim of exemption in bankruptcy was denied by the Referee, who found the transfer fraudulent. The district court upheld this determination.
It has long been the rule in this and other jurisdictions that the purposeful conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets on the eve of bankruptcy is not fraudulent per se. In re Dudley, 72 F.Supp. 942, 945-947 (D.Cal.1947), aff'd per curiam, Goggin v. Dudley, 166 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir.1948); Love v. Menick, 341 F.2d 680, 682-683 (9th Cir. 1965); see 1 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 6.11, p. 853.
The Trustee argues that conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets on the eve of bankruptcy by creation of a secured debt and deposit of the proceeds in an exempt account is fraudulent as a matter of law and therefore a claim of exemption based on such a transfer is invalid. 1 Collier, supra, ¶ 6.11, p. 842.
We hold, however, that there is no significant distinction between the previously approved practice of conversion by sale and conversion by pledge as in the present case. The creditor in a secured loan, like a purchaser, relies on the value of the property encumbered or transferred, and not the debtor's other assets. Thus he is not prejudiced. General creditors of the debtor may be, but no more so than when nonexempt property is sold outright and the proceeds converted into exempt property. Since no more is shown in either case than the intentional conversion of nonexempt property to exempt property, Love v. Menick, supra, controls.
A different case would be presented if on the eve of bankruptcy a debt were created with no intention of repaying the creditor, either by purchasing goods on credit or borrowing money without security. See Love v. Menick, supra, at 682-683 of 341 F.2d.
The underlying question is the same as in Roon. The finding of fraud was based solely on the fact that nonexempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Beverly
...nonexempt into exempt property on the eve of bankruptcy does not, without more, disentitle a debtor to an exemption. Wudrick v. Clements, 451 F.2d 988, 989-90 (9th Cir.1971), cited with approval, Stern, 345 F.3d at 1043-44. Despite its references to precedent, Stern's invocation of federal ......
-
Stein v. United Artists Corp.
...F.Supp. 880, 882 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1981); In re Wudrick, 305 F.Supp. 1123, 1127 (C.D.Cal.1969), modified on other grounds, 451 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). A bankrupt alleging abandonment has the burden of proving at least the trustee's intention to abandon the asset. The emerging ......
-
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Ellison (In re Ellison)
...conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets on the eve of bankruptcy is not fraudulent per se." (quoting Wudrick v. Clements, 451 F.2d 988, 989 (9th Cir. 1971)). The bankruptcy court acknowledged this fact, stating that this was a close case, but finding that combined expenditures from ......
-
Reed, Matter of
...and it was shown only that granting the exemption would defeat the creditor's claim, the exemption was granted. Wudrick v. Clements, 451 F.2d 988 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam); Huenergardt v. John S. Brittain Dry Goods Co., 116 F. 31 (8th Cir.1902); In re Dudley, 72 F.Supp. 943 (S.D.Cal.1947)......
-
Tcl - the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 - February 2006 - Business Law
...8. In re Caparelli, 131 B.R. 895 (Bankr.Fla., 1991) (debtor has right to engage in pre-bankruptcy planning). 9. Wudrick v. Clements, 451 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1971) (conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets on eve of bankruptcy by creation of secured debts and deposit of proceeds in exe......