Ford v. Southern Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Ford)

24 B.R. 616, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4399, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1094
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedApril 5, 1982
Docket19-00559
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 B.R. 616 (Ford v. Southern Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Ford)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ford v. Southern Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Ford), 24 B.R. 616, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4399, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1094 (S.C. 1982).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

J. BRATTON DAVIS, Bankruptcy Judge.

FACTS

On October 26,1981, Robert Wesley Ford and Abbigale Dobson Ford, individually and doing business as Ford’s Picture & Framing Gallery (the debtors), filed for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 1301, et seq.).

On June 27, 1980, Robert Ford borrowed $15,702.60 from Southern Bank & Trust Company (Southern) giving Southern a security interest in all inventory, fixtures, equipment, and receivables then owned or thereafter acquired by Ford; and on September 15, 1980, he borrowed $1,582.27 from Southern.

In January 1981, Ford defaulted in his payments to Southern.

Southern sued in state court and obtained a $12,709.51 default judgment on July 24, 1981. The defendant Franklin'E. West, as Sheriff of Charleston County, (sheriff) executed on the judgment by placing a seal on the door of the debtors’ business on October 20, 1981.

In this adversary proceeding, the debtors want the court: (1) to declare Southern oversecured; (2) to direct the sheriff to release the property taken under execution so as to allow the debtors to resume their selling the property and inventory, which had been seized, in the ordinary course of business free and clear of Southern’s judgment lien; and (3) to declare Southern adequately protected by the debtors’ making periodic payments to Southern in an *617 amount set by the court pursuant to the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan of arrangement.

Southern moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to state facts upon which relief may be granted, contending that the property levied upon by the sheriff prior to the plaintiffs’ filing their Chapter 13 petition was not property of the estate as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) 1 , ergo, not subject to turnover and administration in this Chapter 13 case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether the property seized by the sheriff in the levy of execution is property of the estate as defined in § 541 which, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(b) 2 and 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(1) 3 , can be used, sold, or leased by the debtors in their business as authorized by 11 U.S.C. § 1304(b) 4 , and, as such, is subject to turnover to the debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542(a). 5

Since the parties have not raised the issue of whether the defendants are custodians subject to the trustee’s turnover powers under 11 U.S.C. § 543(b)(1) 6 , this court will not address that issue.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Whether property, seized by a creditor prior to a debtor’s filing for relief under the Bankruptcy Code, is subject to the turnover provisions of the Bankruptcy Code is an issue which has resulted in much litigation.

There are cases which have held that a debtor’s interest in property seized before that debtor’s filing for relief under the Bankruptcy Code is sufficient to render the property “property of the estate”, thus, subject to turnover. Ray Heid, Inc. v. I.R.S., 13 B.R. 171, 7 B.C.D. 1198 (Bkrtcy.D.N.M.1981) (Federal tax levy); Bristol Convalescent Home, Inc. v. I.R.S., 12 B.R. 448, 7 B.C.D. 1151 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981) (Federal tax levy); Alpa Corporation v. I.R.S., 11 B.R. 281, 7 B.C.D. 791, 11 B.R. 281 (Bkrtcy. D.Ut.1981) (Federal tax levy); King v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 14 B.R. 316, 7 B.C.D. 530 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn.1981); (Repossession by secured creditor); Charles Villa Company v. Vagts, 7 B.C.D. 392, 9 B.R. 766 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1981) (Repossession by secured creditor); Barsky v. Pennsylvania, 6 B.C.D. 1216, 6 B.R. 624 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1980) (State tax levy); Troy Industrial Catering Service v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 5 B.C.D. 1243, 2 B.R. 521 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Mich.1980) (State tax levy); *618 In re Aurora Cord and Cable Company, 2 B.R. 342, 1 C.B.C.2d 486 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1980) (Federal tax levy).

In a second line of cases, the courts have held that a pre-petition levy deprives the debtor of possession and of all substantial rights in the property levied upon; therefore, the seized property is not property of the estate, and not subject to turnover. See, United States v. Birco Mining Company, 14 B.R. 1017, 8 B.C.D. 795, (D.C.N.D. Ala.1981) (Federal tax levy); In re Avery Health Center, Inc., 7 B.C.D. 210, 8 B.R. 1016, 3 C.B.C.2d 728 (D.C.W.D.N.Y.1981) (Federal tax levy); Flournoy v. National Bank and Trust (In re Adams), 13 B.R. 281, 7 B.C.D. 1414 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Ga.1981) (Repossession by secured creditor); Douglas v. United States, 7 B.C.D. 690, 10 B.R. 283, 4 C.B.C.2d 533 (Bkrtcy.D.Neb.1981) (Federal tax levy); Parker GMC Truck Sales, Inc. v. United States, 12 B.R. 667, 6 B.C.D. 899, 2 C.B.C.2d 1142 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ind.1980) (Federal tax levy); Winfrey Structural Concrete Company v. I.R.S. 6 B.C.D. 695, 5 B.R. 389, 2 C.B.C.2d 802 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo.1980) (Federal tax levy); Bush Gardens, Inc. v. United States, 5 B.C.D. 1023, 10 B.R. 506 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J.1979) (Federal tax levy).

Flournoy v. National Bank and Trust is particularly pertinent authority for denying turnover since that case, like the instant case, involved a non-tax related seizure of a Chapter 13 debtor’s property.

This court is aware that the line of cases which require turnover of property seized before a debtor’s filing for relief under the Bankruptcy Code may be more conducive to a debtor’s “fresh start”. See generally, Nowak, Turnover Following Pre-Petition Levy of Distraint Under Bankruptcy Code Section 542, 55 Am.Bankr.L.J. 313 (1981). Nevertheless, this issue has recently been addressed and resolved in this circuit in Cross Electric Company v. United States, 664 F.2d 1218

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 B.R. 616, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4399, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-southern-bank-trust-co-in-re-ford-scb-1982.