In re Butcher

47 B.R. 813, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6442, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1169
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedMarch 27, 1985
DocketBankruptcy Nos. 3-83-01008, 3-83-01401
StatusPublished

This text of 47 B.R. 813 (In re Butcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.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 Butcher, 47 B.R. 813, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6442, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1169 (Tenn. 1985).

Opinion

CLIVE W. BARE, Bankruptcy Judge.

I

On February 19,1985, the trustee for the debtors’ estates, James R. Martin, filed a motion seeking approval of four agreements to compromise and settle claims.1 Notice of a hearing on the trustee’s motion was given to creditors of both estates. Only one creditor, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), appeared. However, the United States of America appeared as an amicus curiae.

The subject of the first agreement is a condominium in Key Biscayne, Florida. Cecil H. Butcher, III, the debtors’ son, has offered to purchase the trustee’s interest in the condominium without warranty. The consideration for the purchase of the condominium, presently appraised at $280,000, is: (1) the assumption of an existing first mortgage debt of approximately $80,000; (2) a non-interest bearing $140,000 promissory note, secured by a second mortgage, providing for payment of $70,000 within one year of closing and $70,000 within two [815]*815years of closing; and (3) approximately $43,000 cash to be paid upon closing. The trustee is willing to accept less than the appraised value due to the present “soft market” for condominium properties in southern Florida.2 Further, the trustee wishes to avoid incurring any expense in connection with the condominium.3

The second agreement involves the trustee’s claim to rights in certain luxury automobiles. According to the trustee’s agreement with Shirley Butcher and Seo/Cor, Inc., a Florida corporation, C.H. Butcher, Jr. leased a Rolls Royce automobile in December 1981 from the Bank of Commerce. Upon default, Shirley Butcher paid $50,000 and B & B Properties Ltd. paid $69,000 to the Bank of Commerce. Title to the Rolls Royce was issued in the name of Seo/Cor, which in turn sold the vehicle to Michael Adler in exchange for his $60,000 promissory note and $30,000 cash. Although the trustee contends the Rolls Royce is property of the debtors’ estates, Shirley Butcher maintains the vehicle was legally and properly sold to Adler by Seo/Cor. The trustee also asserts rights to three other automobiles and a promissory note to Sco/Cor in the amount of $8150 from Zane Daniels. Shirley Butcher denies ownership of any interest in these three automobiles or the Daniels note. In settlement of the trustee’s claims, Sco/Cor agrees to: (1) pay $30,000 cash; (2) assign to the trustee Adler’s $60,000 note, having an unpaid balance of between $52,000 and $53,000; and (3) transfer to the trustee Sco/Cor’s interest in the proceeds from the Daniels note, previously deposited in the court’s registry, totaling approximately $8900 including interest. The trustee represents he will receive approximately $92,000 under the second agreement and that the maximum recovery on his claims, excluding costs and expenses, is $132,000.

The trustee zealously recommends court approval of both the condominium sale and the “automobile claims” agreements. FDIC, principal creditor of the C.H. Butcher, Jr. estate and a holder of substantial claims against the Shirley Butcher estate, concurs, apparently wholeheartedly,4 in the trustee’s recommendation. No creditor of either estate has interposed an objection to either agreement. At the urging of the trustee, the representative of all creditors, and relying upon the trustee’s recommendation and FDIC’s concurrence, as well as the absence of objection by any creditor, the court approves the trustee’s settlement agreement with respect to the automobiles.

However, the court declines to approve the agreement for the proposed condominium sale. Presumably, the appraiser’s valuation of the condominium takes into account the current market conditions.5 The present value of the consideration offered by the debtors’ son ($244,000) approximates eighty-seven (87) percent of the current appraised value ($280,000).6 A private sale of property in a bankruptcy case to a debtor’s relative for less than fair market value should not be approved [816]*816absent a conclusive showing that market value cannot be obtained.7

II

As originally submitted, the two remaining agreements, the “Preferred Stock Agreement” (a/k/a the Red Gate agreement) and the “Red Wind Agreement,” recite in part:

6. The Trustee acknowledges that Mr. Butcher, III, through his attorneys and others, during the past year has engaged in good faith negotiations with the Trustee to resolve all claims by the Trustee against him and entities owned by him and has cooperated with the Trustee and, to the Trustee’s knowledge, has not acted to hinder, delay or defraud the Bankruptcy Estates of C.H. Butcher, Jr. and Shirley R. Butcher.
7. Trustee has served Mr. Butcher, III with an Order Requiring Attendance and Testimony at 2004 Examination and Production of Documents; in response thereto Trustee has obtained testimony and documents. Trustee releases Mr. Butcher, III and Red Gate from further obligations to respond to such Order, and agrees not to seek or obtain any additional discovery orders.8

At the hearing on the trustee’s motion for approval held March 13, 1985, the court inquired about the reason for these provisions. Neal Melnick, an attorney for the trustee, advised the court that these provisions, included at the request of attorneys for Cecil H. Butcher, III, formed part of the consideration for the two agreements. According to Melnick, the provisions are accurate and no reason exists not to accede to their inclusion in the Red Gate and Red Wind agreements. Representing FDIC, Deborah Stevens stated that from its standpoint FDIC sees no problems with the inclusion of these provisions and does not really care whether or not the language is included in the settlements.

On March 12, 1985, the day preceding the hearing on the trustee’s motion, the United States filed a motion for leave to file, and a memorandum as, amicus curiae. Formal intervention was not requested. Guy Blackwell, Assistant United States Attorney, stated during the March 13th hearing that the United States felt obliged to file a memorandum as an amicus curiae because the quoted language in the Red Gate and Red Wind agreements conflicts with the facts. According to Blackwell, Cecil H. Butcher, III has refused to provide the trustee with records properly subpoenaed and failed to offer any excuse for the non-production. Further, according to Blackwell, Cecil H. Butcher, III, asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination some sixty-four (64) times, repeatedly refused to answer the trustee’s questions at a deposition proceeding. Jeffrey Hall, appearing on behalf of Cecil H. Butcher, III, did not challenge or controvert Blackwell’s representations.

Although it is suggested that the court’s approval of the agreements, inclusive of the provision regarding cooperation and an absence, to the trustee’s knowledge, of acts by Cecil H. Butcher, III to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, would not amount to an “imprimatur,” this court categorically refuses to approve any settlement agreement which includes inaccurate or misleading provisions. Under the facts presented to the court, the agreement by the trustee and his attorneys to an acknowledgement of cooperation is simply not supported by the records.

At the conclusion of the March 13th hearing the court declined to approve either the Red Gate or the Red Wing agree[817]

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 B.R. 813, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6442, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-butcher-tneb-1985.