In Re Jenkins

99 B.R. 949, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2444, 1988 WL 155964
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedSeptember 30, 1988
Docket16-60835
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 B.R. 949 (In Re Jenkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Jenkins, 99 B.R. 949, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2444, 1988 WL 155964 (Mo. 1988).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF SECURED STATUS AND MOTION TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND ORDER CONFIRMING SECOND AMENDED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AS AMENDED

KAREN M. SEE, Bankruptcy Judge.

Pending before the court is debtors’ Second Amended Plan of Reorganization and three related motions: 1) Motion to Amend the Plan, filed by debtor's; 2) Motion to Determine Secured Status filed by Citizen’s Bank of Polk County (“Citizens”); and 3) Motion to Determine Secured Status and for Valuation of Collateral filed by Polk County Bank. Also relevant to the issues raised by these motions are objections to the Plan filed by Citizen’s, Polk County Bank, and First Savings and Loan Association. A hearing on confirmation was held September 24, 1987 at which all parties were represented by counsel.

Background Facts

Debtors, who are farmers, filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on October 21, 1986. Earlier in these proceedings both Citizen’s and Polk County Bank sought adequate protection on their claims. As to Citizens, in its Order entered November 18, 1986, the court found that Citizen’s was a secured creditor in the amount of $47,848 on two debts that the court merged. The court further found that the total value of the collateral securing the combined debt was $69,930. Thus, Citizen’s was overse-cured in an amount in excess of $21,000. Of the $69,930, $33,000 was debtors’ equity in real estate valued at $52,000 in which a prior mortgage of $19,000 existed. The remaining $14,848 1 was the value of the cattle and machinery on which Citizens had a first lien. 2 The court ordered adequate protection payments in the amount of $573.74. 3 Debtors owed Citizen’s an addi *951 tional debt in the outstanding principal amount of $4,978. The court found the value of the collateral securing that debt to be $3,250 and that Citizen’s was secured to that amount. Adequate protection payments of $55.60 were ordered.

As to Polk County Bank, the court found that it also had a debt secured by a security interest, junior to Citizen’s security interest, in the cattle and machinery. The outstanding principal balance on the debt was $28,752.90. The court used the figures from the adequate protection hearing on Citizen’s motion and found that Polk County Bank was a secured creditor in the amount of $21,040. Debtors were required to make adequate protection payments in the amount of $330.51 per month on this debt. Polk County Bank was also found to have a fully secured interest in two vehicles. Adequate protection payments in the amount of $101.54 were ordered on the remaining principal balance of $3,928.78.

Polk County Bank’s Motion for Determination of Secured Status and Objection to Debtors’ Second Amended Plan

Debtors’ Plan treats Polk County Bank as a secured creditor only as to its first lien on the vehicles in the amount of $3,928.78. The remaining $37,510.69 is treated as an unsecured claim. In support of this treatment, debtors contend that because Citizen’s is the second mortgagee on the portion of its debt secured by real estate in all likelihood its claim would be satisfied out of the cattle and machinery if it became necessary. If that happened, Polk County Bank would be rendered totally unsecured because it is junior to Citizen’s on the cattle and machinery. Polk County Bank contends that the same is true of Citizen’s, as second mortgagee on the real estate, yet the Plan treats Citizen’s as a fully secured creditor. Polk County Bank argues that this treatment of its claim is analogous to a marshaling of assets in an attempt to defeat an otherwise properly perfected, albeit subordinate, claim. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that, as proposed, the Plan cannot be confirmed because it neither properly treats an impaired class nor, absent the modifications made herein, meets the requirements for “cramdown”.

First, a plan of reorganization can only be confirmed if it meets all the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129. One of these requirements is that the holder of an impaired claim must either accept the plan or be given property equal in value to the amount it would receive in a liquidation under chapter 7. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(7). The claim of Polk County Bank is impaired under the Plan because the Plan alters the Bank’s rights by treating its secured debt 4 as an unsecured debt. See 11 U.S.C. § 1124(1). As the holder of an impaired claim, Polk County Bank has rejected the Plan. The Plan does not provide for the Bank to retain or receive any interest in any property. Thus, the provisions of § 1129(a)(7) have not been met. Under these circumstances, the “cramdown” portion of § 1129 comes into play. Absent modification of the Plan, that portion of. § 1129 has not been met, either.

Section 1129(b) allows a court to confirm a plan despite a class of rejecting, impaired creditors. “The general principle of the subsection permits confirmation notwithstanding nonacceptance by an impaired class if that class and all below it in priority are treated according to the absolute priority rule. The dissenting class must be paid in full before any junior class may share under the plan.” H.R. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 413-418 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6369-6374. In its present form the Plan pays Polk County Bank’s claim on a pro rata basis with other unsecured creditors when it should provide for *952 payment in full to the Bank before any unsecured creditors are paid. Thus, the “cramdown” requirements of § 1129(b) have not been met.

Additionally, the court agrees with Polk County Bank’s analysis that debtors’ treatment of its claim is analogous to the marshaling of assets. The case law is quite clear that neither a trustee nor a debtor in possession can force “reverse marshaling” of assets by requiring a senior lienor to satisfy its claim out of collateral also securing a junior lienor’s interest when the senior lienor has other collateral it may draw from first. In re Center Wholesale, Inc. (Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Center Wholesale, Inc.), 788 F.2d 541, 542[1] (9th Cir.1986); accord In re Larry’s Equipment Service, Inc. (Canal National Bank v. Larry’s Equipment Service, Inc.), 23 B.R. 132, 134[3,4] (Bankr.D.Me.1982). See also In re Jack Green’s Fashions for Men -Big and Tall (Berman v. Green), 597 F.2d 130, 132[2] (8th Cir.1979); Matter of McElwaney (Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Tidwell), 40 B.R. 66, 72[3] (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1984).

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

Related

In Re Borges
184 B.R. 874 (D. Connecticut, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 B.R. 949, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2444, 1988 WL 155964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jenkins-mowb-1988.