Young, Matter of, 86-3567
| Decision Date | 07 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3567,86-3567 |
| Parties | Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,627 In the Matter of Herman Neil YOUNG, Debtor. Herman Neil YOUNG, Appellant, v. David V. ADLER, Trustee, Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Emile L. Turner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Merrill T. Landwehr, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before REAVLEY, JOHNSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment that attorney's fees paid to the appellant/debtor, in the form of an annuity, were not exempt from the bankruptcy estate. 64 B.R. 611. Both courts also agreed that the appellee/trustee had not failed to object timely to this claimed exemption. We affirm.
On July 20, 1984, Herman Neil Young (Debtor), an attorney, filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Initially, Debtor failed to list in his schedules income in the sum of $1,875 per month from First Colony Life Insurance Company paid pursuant to an annuity contract dated July 1, 1982. The annuity contract resulted from Debtor's representation of the surviving spouse and children of Edwin Joseph Fanguy in a death claim against Offshore Logistics, Inc., Offshore Logistics International, Inc., Air Logistics International, their affiliated companies and underwriters (hereinafter referred to as "underwriters"). A structured settlement was entered into by and between all parties in interest, including Debtor as counsel of record. This agreement provided Debtor $25,000 immediately, and monthly payments of $1,875 for the period of fourteen years, beginning on August 1, 1982 and terminating on July 1, 1996. The monthly payments were to come from an annuity contract, executed by Gerald J. Sullivan & Associates, Inc. (Sullivan), for the benefit of Neil Young, and issued by First Colony Life Insurance Company.
On January 14, 1985, the trustee of Debtor's estate, David V. Adler (Trustee), filed a motion against Sullivan requesting that Sullivan, as owner of the contract, be directed to pay all future annuity payments to Trustee. In addition, Trustee filed a motion to require Debtor to turn over $11,250 he received pursuant to the annuity contract subsequent to filing the bankruptcy petition.
On January 31, 1985, Debtor amended his Statement of Financial Affairs to include the annuity as personal property, but claimed that it was exempt from the bankruptcy estate. Debtor listed the annuity as having a zero value because he claimed to have no interest in it, being the beneficiary rather than the owner of it. Debtor also filed objections to Trustee's motions seeking to require him to remit past annuity payments and Sullivan to remit future payments. On March 15, 1985, Trustee filed an objection to Debtor's claimed exemption of the annuity payments. Debtor contends that Trustee's objection was not timely filed, and, in any case, the claimed exemption was proper. We consider Debtor's contentions in turn.
Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b) provides as follows:
Objections to Claim of Exemptions. The trustee or any creditor may file objections to the list of property claimed as exempt within 30 days after the conclusion of the meeting of creditors held pursuant to Rule 2003(a) or the filing of any amendment to the list unless, within such period, further time is granted by the court. Copies of the objections shall be delivered or mailed to the trustee and to the person filing the list and his attorney.
Debtor amended his filing statement on January 31, 1985, claiming an exemption for the annuity and Trustee objected to this claim on March 15, about 44 days later. Because Trustee's objection exceeded the statutory limit, Debtor argues that it is time barred.
The basic purpose of the thirty day requirement in Rule 4003(b) is to ensure timely notice to debtors that the trustee objects to their claimed exemptions. In this case, Debtor amended his filing statement to include the annuity he claims to be exempt only after Trustee filed a motion arguing that the annuity is part of the bankruptcy estate. Trustee levied his objections, thus effectively complying with the rule, prior to Debtor's amending of his statement. Debtor does not, and surely cannot, complain that he did not have actual notice of Trustee's objections. To allow Debtor to gain refuge behind Rule 4003(b) when he amended his financial statement in response to Trustee's objections would be to elevate form over substance. We cannot countenance such a wooden application of the Bankruptcy Rules.
Upon commencement of an action in bankruptcy, all property in which the debtor has a legal or equitable interest becomes property of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 541 (1979); McManus v. Avco Financial Services of Louisiana, Inc. (In re McManus), 681 F.2d 353, 354 (5th Cir.1982); Allen v. Hale County State Bank (In re Allen), 725 F.2d 290, 292 (5th Cir.1984). Once the property becomes a part of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor may exempt certain property. In re McManus, 681 F.2d at 354; In re Allen, 725 F.2d at 292. Under Title 11, section 522(b) of the United States Code, States have a choice of allowing their debtors one of two methods of exempting property from the bankruptcy estate. In In re McManus we explained the federal scheme as follows:
First, depending upon state law, a debtor may be entitled to utilize the federal "laundry list" exemptions specified in section 522(d). Use of the federal laundry list is precluded, however, if "the state law that is applicable to the debtor ... specifically does not ... authorize" its use. In those instances in which state law precludes use of the federal laundry list, a debtor may exempt from property of the bankruptcy estate any property that is legally exempt under either (1) federal law other than the previously described laundry list or (2) applicable state or local law.
681 F.2d at 355 (footnotes excluded).
Louisiana has not authorized the use of the federal "laundry list," and has expressly decreed that the only property a debtor may exempt is such property allowed "under the laws of the State of Louisiana and under federal laws other than Subsection (d) of Section 522 of said Title 11 of the United States Code." La.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 13:3881(B)(1) (West Supp.1986). Therefore, a Louisiana debtor is only entitled to exempt property from the bankruptcy estate that is exempted under Louisiana law, and federal law other than the federal laundry list.
In this case, Debtor argues that under two Louisiana statutes, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 20:33 (West Supp.1986) 1 and Sec. 22:647(B) (West 1978), 2 the payments made pursuant to the annuity contract are exempt from liability. We turn, therefore, to the question whether the present payments are exempt under Sec. 20:33 and/or Sec. 22:647 as proceeds from an "annuity," or are part of the estate as accounts receivable.
An annuity is a "right to receive fixed, periodic payments, either for life or for a term of years,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Orso, Bankruptcy No. 94-11491.
...state of Louisiana. Secondly, the court must, in light of the domicile finding, determine whether the Fifth Circuit case, Matter of Young, 806 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1987),2 is controlling authority which dictates the outcome requested by the objector, that the debtor's rights in, to, and upon ......
-
In the Matter of Orso
...estate under Louisiana law. La. R.S. 22:647. The bankruptcy and district courts attempted to distinguish our decision in Young v. Adler, 806 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1987), which held that certain types of annuities are not exempt. Although the issue is close, we conclude that Young governs this......
-
In re Wyly
...Cook v. C.I.R., 349 F.3d 850, 855 (5th Cir.2003) (referencing Black's Law Dictionary definition); see also Matter of Young, 806 F.2d 1303, 1306 (5th Cir.1987) (citing Black's Law Dictionary definition), overruled on other grounds by Canfield v. Orso (In re Orso), 283 F.3d 686 (5th Cir.2002)......
-
Daniels v. Pecan Valley Ranch, Inc., 04-91-00320-CV
...is more in the nature of an "account receivable" than an annuity as contemplated by the Florida exemption statute. In re Young, 806 F.2d 1303, 1307 (5th Cir.1987). We hold payments made pursuant to the annuity contract issued by Equitable to Daniels are not exempt from garnishment under sta......