Bolton v. Quick Cash Title Loans (In re Bolton)

466 B.R. 831, 67 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1502, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2411
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi
DecidedJanuary 5, 2012
DocketBankruptcy No. 11-52339-KMS; Adversary No. 11-05051-KMS
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 466 B.R. 831 (Bolton v. Quick Cash Title Loans (In re Bolton)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bolton v. Quick Cash Title Loans (In re Bolton), 466 B.R. 831, 67 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1502, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2411 (Miss. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING TURNOVER OF PROPERTY OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR CONTEMPT AND DENYING MOTION OF QUICKCASH TO ALLOW SALE OF COLLATERAL

KATHARINE M. SAMSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came on for hearing on November 17, 2011, (the “Hearing”) on the Motion for Order Requiring Turnover of Property or Alternatively for Contempt (the “Complaint”)1 (Adv. Dkt. No. 1) filed by debtor Princess Bolton and the Answer to Complaint and Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for an Order Requiring Turnover of Property or Alternatively for Contempt and Motion of Quick Cash to Allow Sale of Collateral (Adv. Dkt. No. 6) filed by Creditor Quick Cash Title Loans. At the Hearing, John Anderson represented Princess Bolton (“Bolton”) and David M. Ott appeared on behalf of Quick Cash Title Loans (“Quick Cash”). Counsel for both parties presented arguments. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement and ordered the attorneys to submit briefs on the relevant legal standards. In sum, the Adversary requires the Court to determine whether Bolton’s vehicle is property of the estate, subject to turnover, and whether redemption is exercisable through her Chapter 13 plan. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that only Bolton’s right of redemption is property of the estate; Bolton must redeem the vehicle by paying the required amount in lump sum no later than January 30, 2012, for the vehicle to be subject to turnover.

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E).

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

On February 28, 2008, Princess Bolton (“Bolton”) executed a Mississippi Title Pledge Agreement (“Agreement”) in favor of Quick Cash Title Loans (“Quick Cash”), pledging her 2006 Nissan Maxima vehicle as collateral for a loan in the amount of $2,500.00.2 (Adv. Dkt. No. 6, Ex. A). According to the Agreement, the loan would mature on March 29, 2008, with a total amount due of $3,125.00. Id. The Agreement further provided that if Bolton did not pay the amount due on or before the maturity date, Quick Cash “may take possession of the titled personal property to which the certificate of title relates” and if Bolton “did not redeem the pledged property within thirty days of the maturity [834]*834date by paying all outstanding principal, interest, and other fees, then [Bolton] forfeits all right, title and interest in and to the titled personal property and the pledged property to [Quick Cash], who shall thereby acquire an absolute right of title and ownership to the titled personal property.” Id. The Agreement also stated that the titled personal property is subject to sale at any time after repossession and a statutory, three-business day redemption period has expired, unless the property is deemed to be salvage by the title pledge lender, in which case the property may be sold or otherwise disposed of immediately.3 Id.

Bolton failed to make any payment on or before maturity on March 29, 2008. (Adv. Dkt. No. 6, Ex. C). On March 31, 2008, Bolton incurred a service charge of $562.50. Id. On April 1, 2008, Quick Cash granted an extension4 and Bolton made a payment of $593.75. Id. On April 29, 2008, Quick Cash charged a service charge of $500.00 and granted a second extension, and Bolton made a second payment of $593.75. Id.

On May 1, 2008, Bolton filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, which was dismissed on February 25, 2009.5 In re Bolton, No. 08-50782-NPO (Bankr.S.D.Miss. Feb. 25, 2009) (Dkt. No. 1, 44). During the bankruptcy, Quick Cash received no payments; however, between May 28, 2008, and November 25, 2008, Bolton’s account was charged a total of seven service charges.6 (Adv. Dkt. No. 6, Ex. C).

On June 3, 2009, Bolton filed another Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, which was dismissed on September 27, 2011.7 In re Bolton, No. 09-51131-KMS (Bankr.5.D.Miss. Sept. 27, 2011) (Dkt. No. 1, 75). During the bankruptcy, Bolton made three payments to Quick Cash: $36.50 on June 15, 2011; $85.07 on July 12, 2011; and $53.19 on September 13, 2011.

On October 10, 2011, Quick Cash repossessed Bolton’s vehicle.8 (Adv. Dkt. No. 1; No. 6, Ex. C). On October 11, 2011, Bolton filed the pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In re Bolton, No. 11-52339-KMS (Bankr.S.D. Miss, filed Oct. 11, 2011) (Dkt. No. 1). On this same date, Bolton’s counsel faxed notice to Quick Cash of the instant bankruptcy along with proof of insurance.9 (Adv. Dkt. No. 1). On October 25, 2011, this Court entered an Order granting a continuation of the automatic stay. (Dkt. No. 22). On October 26, 2011, Bolton filed the instant Adversary seeking turnover of her vehicle and sanctions against Quick Cash.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

At the outset, this Court notes that this issue is one of first impression in the Fifth Circuit and Mississippi. There is no re[835]*835ported case law interpreting the Mississippi Title Pledge Act, as amended in 2000, or binding case law interpreting 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(8), regarding whether pledged property is property of the estate.

A. Positions of the Parties

Bolton contends that Quick Cash is listed on the Certificate of Title as lien holder 10 and has Power of Attorney to sell the vehicle after repossession, the same as a traditional lender, and that ownership does not pass until the Power of Attorney is utilized. Bolton further argues that, under the Agreement, Quick Cash could not exercise its Power of Attorney until three days after repossession; however, the instant bankruptcy was filed the day after repossession, within the three-day redemption period. In sum, Bolton contends that the vehicle is property of the estate because title remains in her name, the filing of bankruptcy extended the redemption period, and that she may redeem her vehicle through her Chapter 13 plan.

Quick Cash contends that turnover is not automatically required because: (1) the pledged property is not property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and, thus, not subject to the automatic stay; (2) “at best, the bankruptcy estate has retained only a right to redeem the vehicle, (in exchange for payment in full pursuant to the contractual terms), rather than to compel turnover without payment;” and (3) alternatively, that Bolton is abusing the bankruptcy system and attempting to deprive Quick Cash of adequate protection. (Adv. Dkt. No. 6 at 3).

B. Turnover

To warrant turnover under § 542, the repossessed property must be

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Betty J. Hamilton
S.D. Georgia, 2022
Lisa L Snyder
S.D. Georgia, 2022
In re Curley
572 B.R. 622 (E.D. Louisiana, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
466 B.R. 831, 67 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1502, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolton-v-quick-cash-title-loans-in-re-bolton-mssb-2012.