Goodwin v. Custom American Auto Parts, LLC (In re Pigg)

515 B.R. 274
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedJuly 25, 2014
DocketCase No. 13-07511-dd; Adv. Pro. No. 14-80037-dd
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 515 B.R. 274 (Goodwin v. Custom American Auto Parts, LLC (In re Pigg)) 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
Goodwin v. Custom American Auto Parts, LLC (In re Pigg), 515 B.R. 274 (S.C. 2014).

Opinion

Chapter 13

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

David R. Duncan, Chief US Bankruptcy Judge

This matter is before the Court on the motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiff, Joy S. Goodwin, Trustee (“Plaintiff’). In the second amended complaint Plaintiff filed in this adversary proceeding, she seeks to avoid certain allegedly fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a), 544(b), and 549(a). She also seeks recovery under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a) and turnover under 11 U.S.C. §§ 542(a) and 542(b). Plaintiff named Custom American Auto Parts, LLC; Charlene Neisler; Stephen Wayne Pigg, Jr.; and Leader Industries as defendants. Jurisdiction for this proceeding is premised upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409. This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Plaintiff filed a certificate of service indicating she served Defendants with her amended complaint. No answers were filed, and the Clerk’s Office entered Defendants’ default on May 20, 2014. Plaintiff moved for entry of a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), made applicable by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7055. Plaintiff served her motion for default judgment on Defendants, and no responses were filed. This Court, on June 10, 2014, entered an Order giving Plaintiff an opportunity to address certain deficiencies in the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and a certificate of service indicating service of the second amended complaint on Defendants. No answers were filed, and the Clerk’s Office [277]*277entered Defendants’ default on the second amended complaint on July 10, 2014.

AUTHORITY TO ENTER A FINAL ORDER

This Court previously has concluded that its entering a final order or judgment on a fraudulent conveyance cause of action against a party who has not filed a claim against the bankruptcy estate would be inconsistent with Article III of the United States Constitution without the express consent of the parties. See Vieira v. Clutts (In re Clutts), C/A No. 13-00184-DD, Adv. Pro. No. 13-80068-DD, p. 2 (Bankr. D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2013) (citing Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2609, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011); Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 43-47, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989); Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Nat’l Patent Dev. Corp. (In re TMG Liquidation Co.), C/A No. 7:12-629-TMC, 2012 WL 1986526, at *2 (D.S.C. June 4, 2012); Lain v. Erickson (In re Erickson Ret. Cmty, LLC), Bankruptcy No. 09-37010-sg11, Civil No. WDQ-11-3736, 2012 WL 1999493, at *3 (D. Md. June 1, 2012); McCarthy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A (In re El-Atari), No. 1:11cv1090 (LMB/IDD), 2011 WL 5828013, at *2-*4 (E.D.Va. Nov. 18, 2011)). Defendants have not expressly consented to this Court entering a final judgment, and Plaintiff has not presented legal authority suggesting entry of a judgment by this Court would be consistent with the Constitution. Therefore, this Court will not enter a final judgment but rather submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina for review. See Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2170, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014) (“[W]hen a bankruptcy court is presented with [a claim designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter but prohibited from proceeding in that way as a constitutional matter], the proper course is to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court will then review the claim de novo and enter judgment. This approach accords with the bankruptcy statute and does not implicate the constitutional defect identified by Stem.”); In re Standing Order Concerning Title 11 Proceedings Referred Under Local Civil Rule 83.IX.01, Referral to Bankruptcy Judges, Misc. No. 3:13-mc-00471-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2013).

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant Stephen Wayne Pigg, Jr. (“Pigg”) filed the chapter 13 bankruptcy underlying this adversary proceeding on December 19, 2013. His bankruptcy is captioned In re Stephen Wayne Pigg, Jr., Case Number 13-07511-dd, and is pending before this Court.

2. Plaintiff is the chapter 13 trustee assigned to Pigg’s bankruptcy case.

3. Defendant Custom American Auto Parts, LLC (“CAAP, LLC”) is a South Carolina limited liability company that was registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State on August 6, 2013. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 3.

4. Defendant Charlene Neisler (“Neis-ler”) is the sole member of CAAP, LLC. Plaintiff believes Pigg and Neisler had a close, personal relationship at some point prior to this adversary proceeding being filed. Id A 4.

5. Defendant Leader Industries (“Leader”) is a corporate defendant operating in Connecticut. Id. ¶ 6.

6. Three years prior to filing for bankruptcy, Pigg owned and operated a business known as Dixie Monte Carlo Depot (“Dixie Depot”) in Sanford, North Carolina. On January 14, 2011, Pigg entered [278]*278into an agreement to sell the name Dixie Monte Carlo Depot and other intellectual property to Leader for $500,000, to be paid in equal installments over a four-year period ($125,000 per year). Id. ¶ 7.

7. In approximately January of 2011, around the same time he sold Dixie Depot, Pigg began operating a sole proprietorship selling automobile parts under the name “Custom American Auto Parts.” This business was not registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State and income from the business was listed in Pigg’s personal tax returns using Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, Schedule C. Id. ¶ 8.

8. Between January of 2011 and the summer of 2013, Pigg came to own a number of classic automobile parts. In May of 2013, Pigg owned these parts free and clear of liens. Id. ¶ 9.

9. On or about November 8, 2012, Pigg purchased two parcels of real property in Camden, South Carolina — 1303 and 1309 Jefferson Davis Highway, Camden, South Carolina 29020 (“Jefferson Davis properties”). Plaintiff believes Pigg purchased these properties for more than $110,000 in cash.

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

Related

Vieira v. Oleksy
D. South Carolina, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
515 B.R. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-custom-american-auto-parts-llc-in-re-pigg-scb-2014.