In Re Leon LONSTEIN, Debtor. Leon LONSTEIN, Appellant, v. Matthew D. ROCKMAN, Appellee

950 F.2d 77, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28535, 1991 WL 253930
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 1991
Docket91-1608
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 950 F.2d 77 (In Re Leon LONSTEIN, Debtor. Leon LONSTEIN, Appellant, v. Matthew D. ROCKMAN, Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Leon LONSTEIN, Debtor. Leon LONSTEIN, Appellant, v. Matthew D. ROCKMAN, Appellee, 950 F.2d 77, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28535, 1991 WL 253930 (1st Cir. 1991).

Opinion

CYR, Circuit Judge.

Debtor Leon Lonstein appeals from a district court judgment affirming a bankruptcy court decision which held that Lon-stein’s interest in an undistributed testamentary bequest became property of the chapter 7 estate at the time of the commencement of the case. We affirm.

I

BACKGROUND

An involuntary chapter 7 case was commenced against Lonstein under Bankruptcy Code § 303, 11 U.S.C. § 303, on June 30, 1989, more than a decade after his mother’s will was probated and allowed in Florida. Under the will, Lonstein was bequeathed an unrestricted ten percent interest in the decedent’s estate, which was not distributed until June 15, 1990, almost one year after the commencement of the chapter 7 case. Lonstein contended in the bankruptcy court and the district court, and continues to maintain on appeal, that Bankruptcy Code § 541(a)(5)(A), 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)-(5)(A), restricts the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 541(a)(1), 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), upon which the claim of the chapter 7 trustee depends. The trustee in bankruptcy moves for the imposition of sanctions for a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R.App.P. 38.

II

DISCUSSION

Appellant Lonstein insists, notwithstanding subsection 541(a)(1), that subsection 541(a)(5)(A) dictates that a debtor’s interest in an undistributed bequest, devise, or inheritance does not become property of the chapter 7 estate unless it is distributed within 180 days after the commencement of the case. 1 The issue is controlled by subsection 541(a)(1).

*79 The involuntary chapter 7 petition filed on June 30, 1989, commenced a chapter 7 case, 11 U.S.C. § 303(b), and created the chapter 7 estate, id. § 541(a), which is represented by the trustee in bankruptcy and comprised of “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of” June 30, 1989, id. § 541(a)(1). Thus, the undistributed bequest became property of the chapter 7 estate at the time of the commencement of the case, unless it was neither a legal nor an equitable interest of the debtor under nonbankruptcy law. 2 See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy II 541.07[1], at p. 541-30 (15th ed. 1991) (“the Code provide[s] ... [no] rules for determining whether the debtor has an interest in property_ Determination of these issues, therefore, requires resort to nonbankruptcy law.”) (footnote omitted). Cf. In re Gull Air, Inc., 890 F.2d 1255, 1261, 1261 n. 8 (1st Cir.1989).

Subsections 541(a)(1) and (a)(5)(A) focus on mutually exclusive time periods. Thus, under the express language of subsection 541(a)(1), any legal or equitable interest of the chapter 7 debtor in a bequest as of the commencement of the chapter 7 case is property of the chapter 7 estate. Bankruptcy Code § 541(a)(5)(A), on the other hand, is not implicated unless “the debtor acquires or becomes entitled to acquire” an “interest in property” by bequest “within 180 days after ” the date of the commencement of the case (emphasis added). Since Lonstein's interest under the decedent’s will vested long before the commencement of the chapter 7 case, any property interest Lonstein had under Florida law in the undistributed bequest at the date of the commencement of the case became property of the chapter 7 estate under subsection 541(a)(1), and subsection 541(a)(5)(A) was never activated. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, 11 541.19[18], at p. 541-102 (“If the debtor’s interest in property passing by any of the means specified in section 541(a)(5) actually arises prior to the filing of the petition, the interest becomes property of the [debtor’s] estate under section 541(a)(1)_regardless of whether the value of such interest has been determined or distributed or whether the [decedent’s] estate of which it is a part is subject to administration” (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted)).

The compound interpretation advocated by Lonstein not only impermissibly deprives each subsection of independent meaning but misconstrues significant language common to both subsections. For example, Lonstein misinterprets “interest in property” — the operative term in each subsection — as synonymous with “property,” thereby facilitating an inference that neither subsection is satisfied until the debtor acquires possession of the property, as distinguished from an interest in the property. Furthermore, Lonstein’s interpretation is foreclosed by the prefatory language in subsection 541(a) itself — “wherever located and by whomever held ” — which modifies both subsection 541(a)(1) and subsection 541(a)(5). Finally, Lonstein’s interpretation is precluded by the express language of subsection 541(a)(5)(A), which covers into the chapter 7 estate any “interest in property ... that the debtor ... becomes entitled to acquire within 180 days after *80 the commencement of the case “by be-quest_” (emphasis added).

Under Florida law, Lonstein’s legal interest in the unrestricted testamentary bequest vested at the time of his mother’s death. See Fla.Stat. ch. 732.514 (1977) (“The death of the testator is the event that vests the right to devises unless the testator in his will has provided that some other event must happen before a devise shall vest.”); see also In re Rice, 406 So.2d 469, 473 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (§ 732.514 codifies common law doctrine favoring earliest possible date for vesting of “devises” of personal property); cf. Ray v. Rotella, 425 So.2d 94, 96, 96 n. 2, n. 3 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (estate of decedent never receives title to devises; devisees receive title subject to personal representatives’ statutory right to possession and right to deny beneficiary immediate distribution of property for limited purposes delineated in § 733.608). 3 Alternatively, under Massachusetts law the vesting event would have been the date of the allowance of the will by the probate court, see Mass.Gen.L. ch. 191, § 7 (1990) (“No will, except as provided in this chapter ... shall pass any property, real or personal, or charge or in any way affect the same; and no will shall take effect until it has been duly proved and allowed in the probate court.”), but the passing of title is deemed to have related back to the date of the testator’s death, Union Trust Co. of Springfield v. Nelen, 283 Mass. 144, 186 N.E.

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

Related

Gordon v. Millette (In re Millette)
2015 BNH 008 (D. New Hampshire, 2015)
In Re Brand
251 B.R. 912 (S.D. Florida, 2000)
Spencer v. Blanchard (In Re Blanchard)
201 B.R. 108 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
In Re McNeill
193 B.R. 654 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Chappel v. Proctor (In Re Chappel)
189 B.R. 489 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
In Re Johnson
138 B.R. 352 (D. Rhode Island, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
950 F.2d 77, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28535, 1991 WL 253930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leon-lonstein-debtor-leon-lonstein-appellant-v-matthew-d-ca1-1991.