In re Culp

588 B.R. 389
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware
DecidedAugust 30, 2018
DocketCase No. 14-11592 (BLS); Re: Docket Nos. 189-90, 192
StatusPublished

This text of 588 B.R. 389 (In re Culp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Culp, 588 B.R. 389 (Del. 2018).

Opinion

Brendan Linehan Shannon, United States Bankruptcy Judge

Before the Court is a motion (the "Motion") filed by the Debtors for a determination that certain insurance proceeds currently held by the Chapter 7 Trustee are not property of the bankruptcy estate and should therefore be returned to the Debtors [Docket No. 189]. The Debtors contend that the proceeds are controlled by their mortgage lender under a "loss payee" provision within the insurance policy, and thus were never property of the estate. The Trustee argues that the insurance proceeds are indeed property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(6). For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the insurance proceeds constitute property of the estate.

I. Factual and Procedural History

The facts of this case date back over a decade. The Debtors owned a mixed-use real property known as 30680 Cedar Neck Road in Ocean View, Delaware (the "Property"). The Property was the Debtors' primary residence, and included a bed and breakfast operated by the Debtors. In 2005, the Debtors executed a promissory note (the "Note") in the amount of $309,000. To secure their obligations under the Note, they executed a mortgage encumbering the Property. In 2013, the Note and mortgage were assigned to Green Tree Servicing, LLC ("Green Tree"), which is the most recent mortgagee on the Property.

In 2010, the Property sustained significant fire damage, requiring substantial repair and restoration. The Debtors submitted a claim for benefits under a homeowners' insurance policy issued to them by Great Lakes Reinsurance Company. The record reflects that the policy contained a "loss payee" clause that allowed the mortgagee (viz. , Green Tree) to control any proceeds or payments received on account of any damage caused to the Property, which of course was Green Tree's collateral. Great Lakes initially paid approximately $332,962.63 for a portion of the Debtors' fire-related losses. The insurance proceeds paid under the *391policy were paid directly to the Debtors through a series of checks. Trustee's Objection, Exhibit A. The Debtors later filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking additional payments under the policy.

The Debtors filed a joint Chapter 7 petition in 2014. They filed a schedule of assets and liabilities along with their petition, and the schedules did not reflect an exemption taken with respect to the Property or the insurance proceeds [Docket No. 1]. Following the petition date, the Trustee, the Debtors, and Great Lakes resolved the dispute regarding the declaratory judgment action, and Great Lakes agreed to pay the bankruptcy estate an additional $242,660.26 in proceeds in exchange for a release of liability for any further claims against the policy. This Court approved the insurance settlement agreement in 2015 [Docket No. 36] and Great Lakes delivered the additional proceeds to the Trustee.

The Debtors filed this Motion on May 3, 2016. However, other disputes came to occupy the parties' attention. Specifically, the Trustee filed a motion to sell the Property (the "Sale Motion") [Docket No. 47] for $290,000. The Debtors objected to the sale and, on the eve of the sale hearing they filed a motion seeking to convert their Chapter 7 case into one under Chapter 13 [Docket No. 80]. After two separate hearings, this Court ultimately denied the Debtors' motion to convert and granted the Trustee's motion to sell the Property [Docket Nos. 100 and 119]. The Debtors appealed each of those rulings first to the District Court, which affirmed this Court's rulings on both the Trustee's motion to sell and the Debtors' conversion motion.2 Culp v. Stanziale, Jr. (In re Culp) , 545 B.R. 827 (D. Del. 2016). The Debtors then appealed those rulings to the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the rulings on the two motions. In re Culp , 681 F. App'x 140 (3d Cir. 2017). The Culp's request for review by the United States Supreme Court was denied shortly thereafter. Culp v. Stanziale , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 170, 199 L.Ed.2d 41 (2017). During this whole time period, as noted above, the Court held this Motion in abeyance at the request of the parties.

With the resolution of the appeals, the parties have advised the Court that the Motion is now ripe for consideration and disposition. This Motion asks the Court to decide whether the insurance proceeds currently held by the Trustee are property of the estate or whether they are not and should be returned to the Debtors. The Trustee stated currently has approximately $197,306.54 on hand, with approximately $94,147.74 of known administrative expenses remaining,3 and allowed unsecured claims totaling $131,210.33.4

II. Discussion5

a. The Parties' Arguments

The Debtors contend that the proceeds cannot be property of their estate because *392they were not property of the estate pre-petition. They argue that the "loss payee" clause under the insurance policy granted Green Tree contractual benefits in and rights to the proceeds, allowing Green Tree to determine their use, and thus limiting their rights in them. The Debtors reference three email communications between counsel for the Trustee and Green Tree [Docket Nos. 189-4, 89-5, and 89-6]. In the emails, Green Tree stated that it would permit use of the proceeds for repairs to the Property. That, according to the Debtors, demonstrates that Green Tree held control of the proceeds under the "loss payee" clause, precluding the estate's control over them and removing them from property of the estate. The Debtors cite to a series of cases to substantiate their argument. See, e.g. , First Fid. Bank v. McAteer , 985 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1993) ("the estate's legal and equitable interests in property rise no higher than those of the debtor.") (internal quotation omitted). On that background, the Debtors argue that since the proceeds were never property of the estate, thus they did not claim (and did not have to claim) an exemption in them. Therefore, the proceeds should be returned to the Debtors and would not be available for distribution in the Chapter 7 case.

The Trustee argues that the proceeds are indeed property of the estate.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
588 B.R. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-culp-deb-2018.