In Re Acton Foodservices Corp.

39 B.R. 70, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5715
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedMay 9, 1984
Docket00-01537
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 39 B.R. 70 (In Re Acton Foodservices Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Acton Foodservices Corp., 39 B.R. 70, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5715 (Mass. 1984).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS W. LAWLESS, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Anthony R. Martin-Trigona on July 16, 1983, seeking, among other things, leave to file certain pleadings and documents in this proceeding, and Acton Foodservices Corporation’s (the “Debtor”) objection and motion to strike appearance, proof of claim and motion of Anthony R. Martin-Trigona or, alternatively, for stay thereof. After hearing on November 1, 1983, at which time all parties had the opportunity to be heard, and after review of the submissions of the parties and the applicable authorities, I find as follows:

Mr. Martin-Trigona’s asserted interest in this proceeding arises from the alleged fraudulent sale in 1981 of radio station WDLW from the bankruptcy estate of WHET, Inc., (an entity in which Mr. Martin-Trigona claims an interest) to Acton Corporation. Based on that sale, Mr. Martin-Trigona has asserted a claim of fraud in which he alleges that Acton Corporation conspired with various people to defraud WHET, Inc., of a valuable asset. Acton Corporation is not a debtor before this Court and the Debtor was not in existence at the time of the sale of WDLW. The Debtor is the product of the recapitalization of Acton Corporation subsequent to the sale whereby various entities, including the Debtor, were spun-off into separate corporations. Mr. Martin-Trigona alleges that the spin-off was fraudulent, and ineffective to bar his claim against the Debt- or’s assets. Mr. Martin-Trigona seeks to assert a claim against the Debtor in this proceeding and he has filed various other motions that need not be addressed at this time.

The Debtor raises three arguments in opposition to Mr. Martin-Trigona’s request for leave to file and in support of the Debtor’s motion to strike Mr. Martin-Trigo-na’s notice of appearance in this proceeding. First, the Debtor alleges that Mr. Martin-Trigona’s motion and appearance in this proceeding is in direct violation of the Memorandum of Decision and Order of Permanent Injunction entered by the United States District Court, District of Connecticut (Cabranes, U.S.D.J.) on June 17, 1983. See In Re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1245 (1983). Second, the Debtor asserts that Mr. Martin-Trigona has no standing to bring this claim because the claim is property of either the trustee in Mr. Martin-Trigona’s personal bankruptcy proceeding or the trustee in the bankruptcy case of WHET, Inc. Finally, the Debtor claims that it is a separate legal entity from Acton Corporation and that the Debt- or is not responsible for the acts of that entity.

Conceding, only for the sake of argument, that Acton Corporation was unable to insulate its assets from claims that arose prior to Acton Corporation’s recapitalization, I find that Mr. Martin-Trigona has no standing to assert any claim against the Debtor that arose out of the July, 1981 sale of the radio station to Acton Corpora *72 tion. Any such claims are the property of either his personal bankruptcy trustee and/or of the trustee of WHET, Inc.

On December 2, 1980, Mr. Martin-Trigo-na filed a personal, voluntary Chapter 11 proceeding. On May 4, 1981, a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed in Mr. Martin-Trigo-na’s Chapter 11 case and on June 22, 1982, the bankruptcy court entered an order converting the Chapter 11 proceeding to one under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. It is Mr. Martin-Trigona’s position that the alleged cause of action that arose out of the July, 1981 sale of WDLW to Acton Corporation is not the property of the Chapter 7 estate because the creation and composition of the Chapter 7 estate is deemed to relate back to the date of the filing of the Chapter 11 petition on December 2, 1980. Since the alleged cause of action accrued after the commencement of his Chapter 11 case and prior to the time it was converted to one under Chapter 7, Mr. Martin-Trigona contends that this chose in action is not included in the Chapter 7 estate. I disagree.

When Mr. Martin-Trigona filed his Chapter 11 petition in 1980 an estate was created. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). The scope of the estate is broad: it includes, with two minor exceptions, “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Section 541 goes on to include in the estate “[proceeds, product, offspring, rents, and profits of or from property of the estate,” subject to one important limitation: “except such as are earnings from services performed by an individual debtor after the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(6). Additionally, “[a]ny interest in property that the estate acquires after the commencement of the case” is included in the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(7). Thus, property interests acquired after the filing of Mr. Martin-Trigona’s Chapter 11 petition and prior to the conversion to Chapter 7 will be excluded from the Chapters 11 and 7 bankruptcy estates only to the extent that such property can be considered “earnings from services performed ... after the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(6). See In Re Lotta Water Land Co., 25 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tex.1982) (the proceeds of the sale of corn are not personal earnings but instead represent an interest in property acquired after the commencement of the Chapter 11 case which passes to the Chapter 7 trustee).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently had occasion to consider the scope of the earnings exception continued in § 541(a)(6) in In Re Fitzsimmons, 725 F.2d 1208 (1984). In that case, involving a debt- or who operated a law practice as a sole proprietorship, the court held that the earnings exception of § 541(a)(6) excepts from proceeds of the estate only those “services performed personally by an individual debtor ...” Id. at 1211. Therefore, to the extent that the debtor’s law practice’s earnings were attributable not to the debtor’s personal services but to the practice’s invested capital, accounts receivable, goodwill, employment contracts with the law firm’s staff, client relationships and the like, the circuit court found that these earnings were property of the Chapter 11 estate. Id. If these property interests are part of the Chapter 11 estate, they become part of the Chapter 7 estate upon conversion.

In the case at bar, any legal and/or equitable interests that Mr. Martin-Trigona may have had or asserts to have in WHET, Inc., became property of his Chapter 11 estate in 1980. Any cause of action that may have accrued from any federal or state violation of those rights subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, including causes of action that arose out of the 1981 sale of the radio station, are the property of Mr. Martin-Trigona’s Chapter 7 trustee.

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

Related

Wade v. Chase Manhattan Mtge
Fifth Circuit, 2002
Haley v. DOW LEWIS MOTORS, INC.
85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
Kottmeier v. United States (In Re Kottmeier)
240 B.R. 440 (M.D. Florida, 1999)
Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank
52 Cal. App. 4th 1075 (California Court of Appeal, 1997)
In Re Tomaiolo
205 B.R. 10 (D. Massachusetts, 1997)
In Re Durrett
187 B.R. 413 (D. New Hampshire, 1995)
Sundae v. Scot
529 N.W.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1995)
Matter of Griseuk
165 B.R. 956 (M.D. Florida, 1994)
In Re Doemling
116 B.R. 48 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1990)
Reed v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (In Re Reed)
94 B.R. 48 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
In Re Lennon
65 B.R. 130 (N.D. Georgia, 1986)
In Re Richards
57 B.R. 662 (D. Nevada, 1986)
United States v. Anthony R. Martin-Trigona
759 F.2d 1017 (Second Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 B.R. 70, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-acton-foodservices-corp-mab-1984.