In Re Indian Creek Ltd. Partnership

205 B.R. 609, 37 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1076, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 190, 30 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 557, 1997 WL 86110
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 21, 1997
DocketBankruptcy B-90-12256-PHX-RGM
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 205 B.R. 609 (In Re Indian Creek Ltd. Partnership) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Indian Creek Ltd. Partnership, 205 B.R. 609, 37 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1076, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 190, 30 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 557, 1997 WL 86110 (Ark. 1997).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT G. MOOREMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Reorganized Debtor’s Application for Final Decree. A hearing was held February 3, 1997 after which the matter was taken under advisement. After due consideration of the pleadings, the record herein, and under the present posture of the case, the Court finds and concludes the following in making its decision.

1. Indian Creek Limited Partnership filed a voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition on November 16,1990.

2. On July 17,1992, the Court entered an Order confirming the Debtor’s Third Amended Plan of Reorganization, as Modified.

3. The Debtor filed a Post-Confirmation Final Report on September 17, 1996. The Final Report indicates that the Plan was substantially consummated on July 21, 1992, which is the estimated date of the final payment under the Plan.

4. The Debtor filed an Application for Final Decree on December 13, 1996 requesting that the Court enter the Final Decree and close the case.

5.The United States Trustee filed a Response to the Debtor’s Application for Final Decree on December 17, 1996. The United States Trustee argued that the post-confirmation quarterly fees and reports, as required by the 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1930 1 , had not been paid and requested that the Court order the Debtor to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6) by filing its post-confirmation quarterly reports and paying its post-confirmation quarterly fees. 2

The Court notes that there has been a substantial amount of litigation on the issue of United States Trustee post-confirmation fees since the January 1996 and September 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The reported opinions have involved and detailed a number of different issues ranging from the applicability of the amendments to plans which had been confirmed before the effective date of the amendments to how to calculate or enforce the newly enacted post-confirmation obligation. See generally, In re Betwell Oil & Gas Co., 204 B.R. 817 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1997) (Post-confirmation United States Trustee fees should be paid and calculated based only on those disbursements made by the reorganized debtor pursuant to the confirmed plan); Gryphon at the Stone Mansion v. United States Trustee (In re Gryphon at the Stone Mansion), 204 B.R. 460 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1997) (Post-confirmation United States Trustee fees cannot be collected or enforced through the bankruptcy court because the court does not have jurisdiction to collect the fees); In re Beechknoll Nursing Homes, Inc., 202 B.R. 260 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1996) (Final decree adjudicates no rights of the parties and is merely an admin *611 istrative step in the clerk’s office; post-confirmation fees cannot be collected in ease where substantial consummation of plan occurred before effective date of amendments to § 1930); and In re McLean Square Assoc., G.P., 201 B.R. 436 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1996) (The 1996 amendments to § 1930 make it clear that the United States Trustee post-confirmation fees are to be paid in all Chapter 11 cases notwithstanding the status of the plan confirmation). 3 The Court deems that none of the reported cases represent controlling authority in the District of Arizona, and therefore serve only as non-binding authority-

The Court further notes there remain a number of issues which have not been conclusively resolved by the courts dealing with the litigation over the recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6). The unresolved issues include: 1) which entity is responsible for payment of the post-confirmation quarterly fees and the filing of the reports; 2) whether the plan may be amended by the United States Trustee to impose such an additional fee after the Plan has been confirmed and substantially consummated; and 3) whether there are remaining constitutional issues involving due process and separation of powers. The Court finds and concludes that these issues need not be determined in order to resolve the pending dispute before the Court.

1. Entry of Final Decree

The Court finds and concludes on this record and the undisputed facts that the recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1930 do not expressly modify any other portion of the Bankruptcy Code or Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) and therefore the requirements for the entry of a final decree remain unchanged in spite of the enactment of the 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). Accordingly, FRBP 3022 states, “[a]fter an estate is fully administered in a chapter 11 reorganization case, the court, on its own motion or on motion of a party in interest, shall enter a final decree closing the case.” (Emphasis added). This Court concludes that FRBP 3022 is a mandatory obligation on the Bankruptcy Court and once the Debtor meets the “fully administered” requirement of FRBP 3022, the Court cannot condition the entry of a final decree based on an additional requirement for the payment of post-confirmation quarterly fees to the United States Trustee. The amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1930 after the confirmation order has become final does not change the right of the Debtor to a final decree. In re Precision Autocraft, Inc., 197 B.R. 901, 908 (Bankr.W.D.Wash.1996); 4 Cf., In re Beechknoll Nursing Homes, Inc., 202 B.R. 260, 261 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1996) (The final decree does not adjudicate any rights between the parties and is more of an administrative step to allow the clerk’s office to dispose of the fully administered case file. The final decree is rarely entered at the exact point in time when a case becomes fully administered).

The Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “fully administered,” but the Advisory Committee Note to FRBP 3022 indicates that there are a number of factors to be considered, however, the only preconditions to the entry of a final decree are those relating to the plan and/or the order of con *612 firmation. Precision Autocraft, 197 B.R.

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

Related

In re Atna Resources Inc.
576 B.R. 214 (D. Colorado, 2017)
In Re Gould
437 B.R. 34 (D. Connecticut, 2010)
In Matter of Johnson
402 B.R. 851 (N.D. Indiana, 2009)
In Re Union Home & Industrial, Inc.
375 B.R. 912 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
In Re Kliegl Bros. Universal Elec. Stage Lighting
238 B.R. 531 (E.D. New York, 1999)
In Re AH Robins Co., Inc.
219 B.R. 145 (E.D. Virginia, 1998)
In Re Gates Community Chapel of Rochester, Inc.
212 B.R. 220 (W.D. New York, 1997)
In Re Home Centers, Inc.
232 B.R. 680 (N.D. Ohio, 1997)
In Re Huff
207 B.R. 539 (W.D. Michigan, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 B.R. 609, 37 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1076, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 190, 30 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 557, 1997 WL 86110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-indian-creek-ltd-partnership-arb-1997.