Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In re Monson)

26 B.R. 11, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 2908
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedNovember 18, 1982
DocketBankruptcy No. 80-04205-SJ; Adv. No. 82-0741-SJ
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 B.R. 11 (Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In re Monson)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In re Monson), 26 B.R. 11, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 2908 (W.D. Mo. 1982).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL JUDGMENT DIRECTING DEFENDANT TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY TO TURN OVER PROCEEDS OF SALE OF LOT 38 TO PLAINTIFF LESS STATUTORY FEES

DENNIS J. STEWART, Bankruptcy Judge.

This action was commenced in both the bankruptcy court and the Circuit Court of Buchanan County and is bottomed on the plaintiff’s continuous quest to have a certain tract of real property, described as lot 38 in Monson Addition to Cameron, DeKalb County, Missouri, or the proceeds of its sale, which came to be in the possession of the bankruptcy trustee, turned over to it. When the matter first came before the bankruptcy court for hearing, counsel for the plaintiff and the trustee in bankruptcy appeared before this court to announce that they had elected to try the case in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County.1 This election was made by counsel for the plaintiff, and by the trustee, even though they were then reminded by the court that, under the jurisdictional statute then in effect, §§ 1471(b), (c), Title 28, United States Code, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction concurrent with that of the state court to try the issues joined. Further, this court, by setting successive hearings to try and determine those issues in the event that a trial setting had not yet been secured in the state court, repeatedly reminded the parties, including the trustee, of their right and opportunity to have this matter resolved in this court.2 The parties, nevertheless, continued to elect to have the matter determined in the state court.

In that court, ultimately, a consent judgment was entered into between the Farmers State Bank and the debtors, under the terms of which the title to lot 38, or the proceeds of its sale, were held to vest in the Farmers State Bank. At the request of the parties, a judgment was then entered in this court based upon the state court judgment.3

The trustee in bankruptcy who by now had possession of the proceeds of the [13]*13sale of lot 384 did not voluntarily turn over the proceeds of the sale in compliance with the judgments in those actions to which, technically speaking, he was not a party. Therefore, Farmers State Bank filed the action now before the court to compel the trustee to turn over the proceeds.

A hearing of the matter was conducted by the court on September 2,1982, at which Farmers State Bank appeared by its counsel, James C. Jarrett, Esquire, and Ronald S. Weiss, Esquire, and the trustee appeared personally and as his own counsel. The trustee thereupon raised the following defenses to the plaintiff’s request for turnover of the proceeds of sale of lot 38.

1. If the proceeds are turned over to Farmers State Bank, the bank will thereby, in combination with other sums received from the debtors, receive a windfall in an amount which exceeds the total amount due and owing from the debtors; and
2. The bank’s claim against the bankruptcy estate is limited by the doctrine of res judicata, to the total of the proceeds of lot 38 and therefore the bank cannot exact from the estate any value in excess of that total.5

The trustee’s contentions concerning the extent of the claim are, on the basis of the foregoing facts, res judicata by reason of his prior, express declination to raise that issue in this court, although granted an express opportunity to do so, and by reason of his, in substance, opting out of the state court action and agreeing to abide its judgment.6 “It is fundamental that a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction is res judicata as to the parties thereto, not only as to all matters litigated and determined by such judgment, but also as to all relevant issues which could have been presented.” Hudson v. North American Surety Co. of New York, 377 F.2d 698, 699 (8th Cir.1967). See also Matter of Nitsche, 11 B.R. 443 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.1981), and authority therein cited. The plaintiff’s complaint for turnover of the proceeds is not foreclosed by the disallowance of the claim in this case when the disallowance was, by its own terms, conditional upon its receiving the proceeds of the sale of lot 38.7

Further, the trustee’s contentions of the realization of an excess were the subject of the plenary hearing held in this action on September 2, 1982, and an excess was not clearly shown.8 If the plaintiff at any time realizes an excess, it is duty bound, under pain of contempt citations for violation of §§ 362 and 524 of the Bankruptcy Code, to turn that excess over to the bankruptcy estate. But the litigation over the proceeds of sale of lot 38 is now ended and the trustee, under well-established applicable legal principle, must turn them over to plaintiff less his statutory fee under § 326 of the Bankruptcy Code. It is therefore, accordingly,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant trustee in bankruptcy turn over to plaintiff the proceeds of sale of lot 38 after subtracting his statutory fee pursuant to § 326 of the Bankruptcy Code therefrom.

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

Related

Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In Re Monson)
46 B.R. 3 (W.D. Missouri, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 B.R. 11, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 2908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-state-bank-v-miner-in-re-monson-mowd-1982.