In Re Barber

223 B.R. 830, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1045, 1998 WL 538492
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia
DecidedJuly 28, 1998
Docket19-51517
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 223 B.R. 830 (In Re Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Barber, 223 B.R. 830, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1045, 1998 WL 538492 (Ga. 1998).

Opinion

ORDER

MARGARET H. MURPHY, Bankruptcy Judge.

This ease is before the court on (1) an order for Debtor’s attorney to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, (2) the application of Debtor’s special counsel for compensation, (3) Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s exemptions, and (4) Trustee’s application for compensation. Hearing was held January 8, 1998. For the reasons set forth below, special counsel’s application for compensation is granted and Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s exemptions is sustained.

On or about February 10, 1997, Debtor was injured in a motor vehicle collision. On February 25,1997, Debtor employed Gerri C. Phillips to represent Debtor in a personal injury action arising as a result of the collision. At the time of Debtor’s injury, Debt- or’s prior Chapter 13 case, filed December 16, 1996, was pending in this court, Case Number 96-79994. Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan in that case had been confirmed by order entered February 7, 1997. The case was dismissed by order entered April 16, 1997. 1 Debtor did not advise Ms. Phillips of *832 Debtor’s pending Chapter 13 case until after it was dismissed.

Debtor also did not advise Ms. Phillips when Debtor filed this Chapter 7 case August 8, 1997, and Ms. Phillips apparently never asked. 2 Debtor had informed his bankruptcy attorney 3 of his personal injury claim at the time it occurred but Debtor’s bankruptcy attorney failed to take any action in the first case to amend the Schedules 4 or file an application to approve the employment of special counsel. Although Debtor’s bankruptcy attorney knew, or should have known, of the personal injury action at the time the second bankruptcy case was filed, the existence of the personal injury claim was not disclosed until the September 11, 1997, § 341(a) meeting of creditors, under questioning by Trustee. Again, Debtor’s attorney failed to amend the Schedules to disclose the existence of the claim or to exempt it. Debtor’s attorney also failed to consult with the Chapter 7 Trustee regarding approval of the employment of special counsel. 5

On or about October 16,1997, Trustee sent a letter to Ms. Phillips inquiring about the status of the personal injury action. Debtor communicated with Ms. Phillips shortly thereafter and advised Ms. Phillips that he was dismissing his bankruptcy case. A handwritten dismissal signed by Debtor pro se was filed October 22, 1997. Trustee filed an objection to Debtor’s motion and the motion was denied without hearing by order entered November 14, 1997, on the grounds that the motion was not accompanied by a certificate of service and was not filed by Debtor’s attorney.

On October 22, 1997, Debtor’s attorney promised to file for Ms. Phillips the necessary application for approval of her employment and sent her instructions for providing the necessary affidavit. Her response was not a usable affidavit. On October 23, 1997, Trustee demanded of Ms. Phillips payment to Trustee of the full amount of the proceeds from the settlement of the personal injury action, which had settled on or about October 13, 1997. Trustee refused Ms. Phillips’ request to retain her fee and hold the balance of the proceeds in her escrow account; therefore, on or about October 31, 1997, Ms. Phillips mailed the settlement proceeds to Trustee. On November 14,1997, Ms. Phillips filed a Motion for Payment of Administrative Expenses. On November 24, Debtor’s attorney sent additional instructions to Ms. Phillips regarding the affidavit. Finally, on November 26, 1997, Debtor filed an amendment to his Schedules, adding the proceeds from the personal injury action as an asset, adding several creditors for medical services arising *833 from the personal injury, and exempting $12,854.00 of the personal injury proceeds. In response, this court entered an order December 3, 1997, setting a hearing on Ms. Phillips’ application and requiring Debtor’s attorney to appear and show cause why compensation to Debtor’s attorney should not be reduced for failure to disclose the personal injury claim.

Trustee timely filed an objection to Debt- or’s claim of exemptions on the grounds that Debtor knew of the existence of his personal injury claim before this case was filed and yet failed to include it in his Schedules. Trustee attached to her objection a letter to Debtor from Debtor’s attorney which showed that Debtor was resisting producing tax returns requested by Trustee and providing information to Debtor’s attorney regarding the personal injury claim. The letter acknowledged Debtor’s preference for dismissal rather than cooperating with the Trustee, but cautioned Debtor that he could not dismiss his case without Trustee’s consent.

Bankruptcy Rule 1009 provides that a debtor’s lists or Schedules may be amended “as a matter of course at any time before the ease is closed.” The permissive approach of Bankruptcy Rule 1009 does not, however, deprive the bankruptcy court of the discretion not to allow amendments if the amendment would prejudice creditors; if the debtor has acted in bad faith; or if the debtor concealed assets. In re Talmo, 185 B.R. 637 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1995). Concealment of an asset can bar exemption of that asset. Doan v. Hudgins, 672 F.2d 831 (11th Cir.1982); In re Yonikus, 996 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1993); In re St. Angelo, 189 B.R. 24 (Bankr.D.R.I.1995). See also, In re Williams, 197 B.R. 398 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1996).

In the instant case, it appears that Debtor’s attorney was informed by Debtor of the personal injury claim and the identity of Ms. Phillips on March 18, 1997 (while the prior Chapter 13 case was still pending), but failed to amend the Schedules in the prior case, failed as a matter of professional courtesy to notify Ms. Phillips of the necessity of bankruptcy court approval of her employment, failed to include the personal injury claim in the Debtor’s Schedules in either the prior case or the instant case, failed to amend the Schedules, as promised, once the existence of the personal injury claim surfaced at the § 341 meeting, and failed to explain to Debt- or the significance of the personal injury claim to his bankruptcy case(s) and to impress upon Debtor the need for full disclosure. Debtor never disclosed the existence of his bankruptcy case to his personal injury attorney, Debtor resisted the Trustee’s efforts to obtain information about the claim and Debtor himself went so far as to file his own motion to dismiss. Debtor’s choice to dismiss this case is not logical in view of the fact that the claims against Debtor, even excluding the Chapter 7 Trustee’s fee, are greater than the amount of the settlement. Unless Debtor planned to conceal the settlement proceeds from his creditors, the benefit of allowing the Chapter 7 Trustee to distribute the proceeds to creditors and Debtor receiving a discharge as to the portion of those claims which thereafter remained unpaid is significantly greater than the advantages of dismissal.

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

Related

In Re Raggie
389 B.R. 309 (E.D. New York, 2008)
In Re Colvin
288 B.R. 477 (E.D. Michigan, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 B.R. 830, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1045, 1998 WL 538492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-barber-ganb-1998.