Graham v. Marshall (In Re Marshall)

198 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 843, 1996 WL 410984
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedApril 3, 1996
Docket19-10068
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 B.R. 705 (Graham v. Marshall (In Re Marshall)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. Marshall (In Re Marshall), 198 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 843, 1996 WL 410984 (Ohio 1996).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DECISION

RICHARD L. SPEER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This cause comes before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of John N. Graham, Chapter 7 Trustee, on his Complaint to Avoid Fraudulent Conveyance and/or Deny Discharge. The Defendant Debtor has not responded to the Motion. This Court has reviewed the arguments of Counsel, exhibits, as well as the entire record of the case. Based upon that review, and for the following reasons, the Court finds that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, that the Defendant/Debtor shall be ordered to remit the sum of Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000) to the Plaintiff/Trustee, and that if the Defendant/Debtor fails to do so, her discharge shall be denied.

FACTS

On September 24, 1993, Defendant/Debtor Betty J. Marshall transferred ownership of a Skyline trailer home to Sherry Gilmore (hereafter “Gilmore”). Gilmore is the Debt- or’s daughter. In doing so, Debtor and Gilmore signed a handwritten agreement, which was notarized and dated September 24,1993. The agreement reads as follows:

I Betty J. Marshall am putting my mobile home title in my daughter Sherry Gilmore’(sic) name.
I. She may not not put the mobile home in anyone else’s name.
II. If(sie) ease she does the mobile home title will be signed back over to me.
III. At my death she is to sell the mobile home and split the proceeds with her sisters, Bobbie Moyer & Peggy Lee. Each get a third.
I Sherry Gilmore understand the conditions of above.
Betty J. Marshall Sherry Gilmore

On January 28, 1994, Debtor filed bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Debtor subsequently reacquired the trailer. The Trustee maintains that the Debtor then sold the trailer for an amount the Trustee believes to be approximately Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000). In her Answer, the Debtor denies this assertion.

LAW

The Bankruptcy Code provides in pertinent part:

11 U.S.C. § 101. Definitions
(31) “insider” includes—
(A) if the debtor is an individual—
(i) relative of the debtor or a general partner of the debtor
11 U.S.C. § 548. Fraudulent transfers and obligations
(a) The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily—
(1) made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, indebted; or
(2) (A) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation; and
(B)(i) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obli *707 gation was incurred, or became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation;
(ii) was engaged in business or a transaction, or was about to engage in business or a transaction, for which any property remaining with the debt- or was an unreasonably small capital; or
(in) intended to incur, or believed that the debtor would incur, debts that would be beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as such debts matured.

(d)(1) For the purposes of this section, a transfer is made when such transfer is so perfected that a bona fide purchaser from the debtor against whom applicable law permits such transfer to be perfected cannot acquire an interest in the property transferred that is superior to the interest in such property of the transferee, but if such transfer is not so perfected before the commencement of the case, such transfer is made immediately before the date of the filing of the petition.

(2) In this section—
(A) “value” means property, or satisfaction or securing of a present or antecedent debt of the debtor, but does not include an unperformed promise to furnish support to the debtor or to a relative of the debtor;

11 U.S.C. § 727. Discharge

(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—

(1) the debtor is not an individual;
(2) the debtor, -with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed—
(A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition; or
(B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing of the petition;

DISCUSSION

Proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances, as well as objections to discharge, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, this case is a core proceeding.

A movant will prevail on a motion for summary judgment if, “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 320, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In order to prevail, the movant must demonstrate all elements of the cause of action. R.E. Cruise, Inc. v. Bruggeman, 508 F.2d 415, 416 (6th Cir.1975). Thereafter, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Inferences drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 843, 1996 WL 410984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-marshall-in-re-marshall-ohnb-1996.