In Re Juhl Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Juhl Marine. Wesley B. Huisinga, United States Trustee v. David O. Carter and Rick A. Yarnall

921 F.2d 800, 24 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 643, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22175, 21 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 240, 1990 WL 210472
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 26, 1990
Docket90-5050
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 921 F.2d 800 (In Re Juhl Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Juhl Marine. Wesley B. Huisinga, United States Trustee v. David O. Carter and Rick A. Yarnall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Juhl Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Juhl Marine. Wesley B. Huisinga, United States Trustee v. David O. Carter and Rick A. Yarnall, 921 F.2d 800, 24 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 643, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22175, 21 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 240, 1990 WL 210472 (8th Cir. 1990).

Opinions

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Wesley B. Huisinga, the United States Trustee in this bankruptcy case, appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order that the Trustee’s quarterly fee payments be prorated with David O. Carter’s Chapter 11 legal expenses for the purpose of distributing the bankruptcy estate’s assets. We reverse.

I.

The relevant facts are few and undisputed. On October 31, 1986, Juhl Enterprises, Inc. filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1174, which provides for the reorganization of an ongoing business during the bankruptcy proceedings. During the course of the proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6)1 obligated Juhl to pay quarterly fees to the United States Trustee, Hui-singa (Trustee). Juhl incurred $7,850 in unpaid quarterly fees before converting its case to a Chapter 7, 11 U.S.C. §§ 701-766, liquidation proceeding on December 15, 1988.

Rick A. Yarnall, the Chapter 7 trustee, filed his Final Report and Account Before Distribution on June 2, 1989. In the report, Yarnall proposed the payment of 100% of all Chapter 7 administrative expenses and 100% of the Trustee’s unpaid quarterly fees. Yarnall further proposed that the remaining funds be used to pay pro rata the Chapter 11 administrative expenses that occurred before conversion. This pro rata distribution would have resulted in the Chapter 11 administrative expense claimants receiving 48% of their claims.

David O. Carter, who held a Chapter 11 administrative claim for legal services, objected to Yarnall’s proposed distribution, arguing that the quarterly fees should not be paid in full, but instead should be subordinated to the Chapter 7 payments and paid pro rata along with the Chapter 11 administrative expenses. The Trustee then intervened in support of Yarnall’s proposed distribution.

After a hearing, the bankruptcy court sustained Carter’s objection and ordered Yarnall to amend the Final Report to subordinate the Trustee’s quarterly fees to the Chapter 7 administrative expenses and to pay them pro rata with the Chapter 11 administrative expenses. The Trustee ap[802]*802pealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order without opinion. The Trustee now appeals the affirmance.

II.

This case involves a narrow issue of statutory construction, and thus our review is de novo. See Wegner v. Grunewaldt, 821 F.2d 1317, 1320 (8th Cir.1987). The statutes at issue in this case address the order in which claims against a bankruptcy estate are to be paid. The first relevant statute is 11 U.S.C. § 507 (1988), which establishes the various types of claims and expenses that are to be paid in bankruptcy proceedings under Chapters 7, 11, 12, and 13, and the order of those payments. 11 U.S.C. § 103(a) (1988). Section 507 states in pertinent part: “(a) The following expenses and claims have priority in the following order: (1) First, administrative expenses allowed under section 503(b) of this title, and any fees and charges assessed against the estate under chapter 123 of title 128.” Section 503(b) provides for the payment of administrative expenses in general; subsection 503(b)(4) specifically provides for the payment of legal expenses. 11 U.S.C. § 503. “Chapter 123 of title 28” includes 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6), the provision mandating the quarterly fee payments.

The next statute at issue is 11 U.S.C. § 726 (1988), which governs Chapter 7 distributions of property. Section 726 states in pertinent part:

(a) [P]roperty of the estate shall be distributed—
(1) first, in payment of claims of the kind specified in, and in the order specified in, section 507 of this title;
(b) Payments on claims of a kind specified in paragraph (1), ... of section 507(a) of this title, ... shall be made pro rata among claims of the kind specified in each such particular paragraph, except that in a case that has been converted to this chapter [from Chapter 11], a claim allowed under section 503(b) of this title incurred under [Chapter 7] after such conversion has priority over a claim allowed under section 503(b) of this title incurred under any other chapter of this title....

11 U.S.C. § 726 (emphasis added).

The result of the interplay between these statutes is intriguing. Were this a Chapter 11 distribution without conversion, Carter’s § 503(b) legal expenses and the Trustee’s quarterly fee payments would share first priority for payment. Clearly, in a Chapter 11 case that is converted to a Chapter 7 case, Yarnall’s Chapter 7 administrative expenses are given priority over Carter’s Chapter 11 legal expenses. The issue arising in this case, however, is whether the Chapter 7 administrative expenses are also given priority over the Trustee’s quarterly fees.

The Trustee argues that § 726(a) establishes equal priority for § 503(b) payments and his quarterly fee payments. Section 726(b), according to the Trustee, clearly subordinates only the Chapter 11 § 503(b) administrative expenses, not the Chapter 11 quarterly fee payments. The Trustee emphasizes that § 507(a)(1) mentions § 503(b) administrative expenses and the quarterly fee payments. Because § 726(b) only subordinates the § 503(b) administrative expenses, the Trustee reasons, the quarterly fee payments share first priority with the Chapter 7 administrative expenses.

Carter emphasizes § 507 as well, albeit a different part of it. He points to subsection (a), which states: “The following expenses and claims have priority_” Carter contends this language includes the “administrative expenses, and fees and charges” referred to in subsection (a)(1), so that the Trustee’s quarterly fee is simply another “expense” or “claim.” Applying this interpretation to § 726(b), Carter contends, results in the Trustee’s quarterly fees having the same priority as Carter’s Chapter 11 expenses, namely, they are both subordinated to Yarnall’s Chapter 7 § 503(b) administrative expenses. Carter argues that the § 726(b) exception highlighted above does not elevate the quarterly fee payments above his legal expenses, [803]*803because to elevate one Chapter 11 claim over another would produce a result at odds with the first part of § 726(b), mandating pro rata payment of § 507(a)(1) claims.

The bankruptcy court accepted Carter’s argument, reasoning that the Trustee’s quarterly fees were really Chapter 11 administrative expenses.

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

Related

In Re Visionaire Corp.
290 B.R. 348 (E.D. Missouri, 2003)
In Re Atcall, Inc.
284 B.R. 791 (E.D. Virginia, 2002)
In Re Jonick Deli Corp.
263 B.R. 196 (S.D. New York, 2001)
In Re Mary James, Inc.
225 B.R. 635 (E.D. Michigan, 1998)
In Re Mary James, Inc.
211 B.R. 227 (E.D. Michigan, 1997)
In Re Burk Development Co., Inc.
205 B.R. 778 (M.D. Louisiana, 1997)
United States Trustee v. Hirsch (In Re Ehrman)
184 B.R. 362 (D. Arizona, 1995)
U.S. Trustee v. Endy (In Re Endy)
181 B.R. 526 (D. Nevada, 1995)
In Re Lochmiller Industries, Inc.
178 B.R. 241 (S.D. California, 1995)
In Re Ehrman
171 B.R. 683 (D. Arizona, 1994)
Huisinga v. Carter (In Re Larsen)
169 B.R. 404 (D. South Dakota, 1994)
In Re Endy
166 B.R. 438 (D. Nevada, 1994)
Ross v. Kanaga (In Re Darmstadt Corp.)
164 B.R. 465 (D. Delaware, 1994)
In Re Croton River Club, Inc.
162 B.R. 656 (S.D. New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
921 F.2d 800, 24 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 643, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22175, 21 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 240, 1990 WL 210472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-juhl-enterprises-inc-dba-juhl-marine-wesley-b-huisinga-united-ca8-1990.