In Re Preston

82 B.R. 28, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2062, 1987 WL 31521
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedDecember 31, 1987
Docket19-70250
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 82 B.R. 28 (In Re Preston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Preston, 82 B.R. 28, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2062, 1987 WL 31521 (Va. 1987).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

H. CLYDE PEARSON, Chief Judge.

Before the Court, at the request of the Clerk of this Court and certain counsel practicing before the Court, is a procedural matter relating to the United States Trustee and the newly created office thereof in this District. The procedural issue involves 11 U.S.C. § 554 and Bankruptcy Rule 6007 relating to the abandonment of property of the estate. A copy of the form which the United States Trustee seeks to utilize is attached hereto as an Appendix.

28 U.S.C. § 154(b) vests in the undersigned, the Chief Judge of this District, among other responsibilities, the duty to ensure that rules of the Bankruptcy Court and of the District Court are observed _” Since the affixed form relates to the procedural application of the Bankruptcy Rules, it is necessary that an analysis and resolution be made in order that the orderly processes of the Court in this District will be carried out.

An analysis of the proposed form reflects improprieties in two primary respects: (1) the form seeks to circumvent the intent and purpose of 11 U.S.C. § 554 and Rule 6007; and (2) it encourages the unauthorized practice of law as prohibited by UPL Opinion Nos. 58 and 65 approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia May 1, 1984, and August 28, 1984. See Virginia *29 State Bar Professional Handbook, page 107 and 116. 1

The Congress of the United States enacting the United States Trustee Statutory *30 System, 28 U.S.C. § 581, et seq., sought to remove the judge, so far as possible, from the administration of bankruptcy estates pending in this Court. In Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, Bankruptcy Code pamphlet edition, at page 54, (See also 4 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th Edition) § 554 — 02[4]) sets out legislative history reflected in the House Report (Reform Act of 1978) relating to the court’s function in the following paragraph:

If an objection to the proposed action is not made, then the trustee may proceed with the same authority as if he had obtained a court order authorizing the action. If an objection is made, the court will hear the dispute generated by the trustee’s proposed action and the objection to it, and make the appropriate orders, either authorizing or prohibiting the trustee’s proposed action. The United States trustee will exercise his supervisory role in part by consulting with trustees in advance of proposed action, and by raising an objection to the proposed action with the court when the action would be improper.

A simple reading of Section 554 and Rule 6007 makes it abundantly clear that the abandonment of property from the estate is an administrative function of the trustee in the first instance. This procedure simply entails, after notice, the filing under Rule 6007(a) a notice with the clerk of this Court of a proposed abandonment. In such event, the clerk simply receives and dockets as filed the notice of abandonment. Absent an objection within fifteen (15) days, the property will be abandoned. In which event, neither the court nor clerk is involved further in the administration of the abandoned property in question. No additional papers are to be filed or docketed and no court orders will be entered.

Rule 6007(b) provides that a party in interest may file and serve a motion requiring the trustee or debtor in possession to abandon property. Rule 6007(b) contemplates that a secured creditor or other party in interest has requested the trustee to voluntarily abandon property pursuant to 6007(a) and that the trustee, for such reason that the trustee deems appropriate, has declined to do so. The motion under 6007(b) necessarily takes on the posture of Bankruptcy Rule 9014, thereupon creating a contested matter requiring notice and opportunity for hearing, presentation of evidence and the invocation of adversarial proceedings Rules 7021, 7025, 7026, 7028-7031, 7041, 7042, 7052, 7054-7056, 7062, 7064, 7069 and 7071 set forth therein relating to discovery and other matters. An entity that is not an individual and not represented by counsel seeking relief under Rule 9014 constitutes the practice of law under the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice, Bankruptcy Rules pamphlet edition, at page 354, sets out an analysis of Rule 6007 as following the approach under Rule 6006(b) where a party in interest seeks to compel a trustee to act to assume, reject or assign an executory contract or unexpired lease stating that such entity must follow the motion practice outlined under Rule 9014. Further, that a party in interest who seeks to compel a trustee or debtor in possession to abandon property must also do this by motion in order to obtain a court order directing such abandonment. A motion under Rule 9014 is subject to Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules.

Rule 6007(c) provides for a hearing upon the contested matter brought on pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014. In that event where a timely objection is made pursuant to 6007(a) or a motion prescribed by Subdivision (b), the court shall set a hearing on notice to the entities as the court may direct. In Norton, supra, page 355, the treatise states as follows:

Rule 6007 differs from former Rule 608 in that the Court may not, on its own initiative, direct or approve the abandonment of any property under the Code. The Court is not charged with administrative duties and enters the picture only for judicial functions at a proper request of a party in interest. Additionally, Rule 6007 is silent with respect to the principle expressed in former Rule *31 608 that the closing of an estate without administration of scheduled assets is tantamount to an approval of an abandonment. This point is now covered in Code § 554(c) (emphasis added).

A simple analysis of Bankruptcy Rule 6007(a), (b) and (c) reflects a system designed to implement 11 U.S.C. § 554 relating to the abandonment process. The provisions of the Rule clearly provide that subparagraph (b) and (c) do not come into play until an issue is joined between the trustee, a secured creditor or other entity or the debtor in possession where such trustee or debtor in possession has, for whatever reason, declined to administer the provision of Rule 6007(a) by voluntarily filing notice of proposed abandonment of property of the estate in which the parties may be interested. Once that issue is joined, the issue becomes a contested matter under Rule 9014 and the provisions of 6007(b)(c). Only then does the court become involved in the administrative process effecting abandonment of property.

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

Related

Matter of Bright
171 B.R. 799 (E.D. Michigan, 1994)
Stone v. Kasuba (In Re Stone)
166 B.R. 269 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1994)
United States Trustee v. Kasuba (In Re Harris)
152 B.R. 440 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1993)
In Re Bachmann
113 B.R. 769 (S.D. Florida, 1990)
In Re Gantt
98 B.R. 770 (S.D. Ohio, 1989)
In Re Wilson
94 B.R. 886 (E.D. Virginia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 B.R. 28, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2062, 1987 WL 31521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-preston-vawb-1987.