In Re Buren

4 B.R. 109, 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 380, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5390, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 828
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee
DecidedMarch 28, 1980
DocketBankruptcy 379-01863
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 4 B.R. 109 (In Re Buren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Buren, 4 B.R. 109, 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 380, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5390, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 828 (Tenn. 1980).

Opinion

ORDER

PAUL E. JENNINGS, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Social Security Administration for relief from an order of the Court requiring benefits to be paid to the Trustee for the above-named Chapter 13 debtor.

The debtor is a disabled individual receiving certain retirement funds from the U.S. Army and disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 18, 1979. After confirmation of the debtor’s amended plan, the Court entered two amended payT roll deduction orders as follows: an order requiring the Commander of U.S. Army Finance and Accounting to pay to the Trustee $153 per month from benefits due the debtor and an order requiring the Social Security Administration to pay to the Trustee $350 per month from benefits due the debtor. Although monthly payments have been received from the U.S. Army, the Social Security Administration has filed a motion for relief from the Court’s amended order.

Section 1325(b) of the Code states that after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan “. . . the Court may order any entity from whom the debtor receives income to pay all or any part of such income to the Trustee.” 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). The concept of “entity” in § 1325(b) is defined in § 101(14) of the Code as follows: “. ‘entity’ includes person, estate, trust, governmental unit11 U.S.C. § 101(14). “. . . ‘Governmental unit” in § 101(14) is further defined in § 101(21) as follows: “. . . ‘governmental unit’ means . department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 101(21). The Social Security Administration is a “governmental unit” under § 101(21) and, therefore, is an “entity” under § 101(14).

The definition of “entity” in § 101(14) should be contrasted with the definition of person in § 101(30). Entity includes governmental units, while person does not. The Code carefully uses these terms. For example, note their use in § 109(b) and (c). Congress chose the word in § 1325(b) and intended to include governmental units. Section 1325(b) thus subjects the Social Security Administration to orders of the Bankruptcy Court requiring the payment of a debtor’s income to the Trustee in Chapter 13 cases.

The expanded jurisdictional provisions of the new Bankruptcy Code make it clear that the Social Security Administration and other government units are subject to income deduction orders in Chapter 13 cases. If 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b) is not itself sufficient authority to support the income deduction order herein, there can be no doubt that § 105(a) of the Code and §§ 1471(a) and (e) of Title 28 of the United States Code give the Court authority to issue the challenged orders. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) reads in full as follows:

(a) the bankruptcy court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.

Section 105(a) is an intentionally broad grant of authority to the United States Bankruptcy Courts to facilitate the orderly administration of bankruptcy cases. This section is much broader than its predecessor, § 2a(15) of the prior Act. Unlike the restriction under prior law that an order of a bankruptcy court must be “necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of this title,” § 105 authorizes the bankruptcy court to also issue orders “appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” The power contained in § 105 is arguably , more extensive than that contained in the All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Section 105 complements the all encompassing grant of jurisdiction now *111 contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1471, which provides in part:

(e) the bankruptcy court in which a case under Title 11 is commenced shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property, wherever located, of the debtor, as of the commencement of such case.

As outlined below, the debtor’s right to receive social security benefits is property of the Chapter 13 estate. Such property is unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Section 105(a) authorizes the Bankruptcy Court to issue orders “necessary and appropriate” to carrying out the provisions of the Chapter 13 plan. The plan herein calls for the payment of social security benefits to the Trustee for distribution to creditors.

The Social Security Administration cannot claim the immunity from income deduction orders which may have been available under prior law. As demonstrated in United States v. Krakover, 377 F.2d 104 (10th Cir. 1967), agencies of the United States government had realized some insulation from income deduction orders in Chapter 13 cases under prior law. In Krakover the 10th Circuit reasoned that § 658(2) of the prior Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 1058(2), limited the enforceability of income deduction orders in Chapter 13 cases to an “employer” other than the United States government. The language of § 1325(b) of the Code and the definitions contained in § 101 clearly overrule the immunity analysis in Krakover.

Moreover, 11 U.S.C. § 106 specifically addresses the immunity issue as follows:

Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity—
(1) a provision in this title that contains “creditor,” “entity” or “governmental unit” applies to governmental units; .

Congress, thus, contemplated a waiver of the principle of sovereign immunity of the United States at least to the extent of subjecting government agencies to income deduction orders as “entities” under § 1325(b).

Congress contemplated that individuals receiving income from social security could be debtors under Chapter 13 of the new Bankruptcy Code. An “individual with regular income” who otherwise meets the re-requirements of § 109(e) of the Code is eligible to be a debtor under Chapter 13. 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). Section 101(24) of the Code defines “individual with regular income” to mean:

“. . . [an] individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under Chapter 13 of this title ...” 11 U.S.C.

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

Related

Looney v. Feldman (In Re Feldman)
242 B.R. 88 (S.D. Florida, 1999)
In Re Reiter
126 B.R. 961 (W.D. Texas, 1991)
In Re Buren
725 F.2d 1080 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
Hildebrand v. Social Security Administration
725 F.2d 1080 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
In Re Baxter
34 B.R. 911 (E.D. Tennessee, 1983)
In Re McMonagle
30 B.R. 899 (D. South Dakota, 1983)
United States v. Janice E. Devall
704 F.2d 1513 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)
In Re Wood
23 B.R. 552 (E.D. Tennessee, 1982)
Matter of Moore
17 B.R. 551 (M.D. Florida, 1982)
In Re Taylor
15 B.R. 596 (D. Arizona, 1981)
In Re Craig
15 B.R. 712 (W.D. North Carolina, 1981)
In Re Williams
13 B.R. 640 (E.D. Washington, 1981)
In Re Hughes
7 B.R. 791 (E.D. Tennessee, 1980)
In Re Devall
9 B.R. 41 (M.D. Alabama, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 B.R. 109, 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 380, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5390, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-buren-tnmb-1980.