In Re Stevens

2007 BNH 28, 374 B.R. 31, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2646, 2007 WL 2298243
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedAugust 9, 2007
Docket07-11007
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2007 BNH 28 (In Re Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Stevens, 2007 BNH 28, 374 B.R. 31, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2646, 2007 WL 2298243 (N.H. 2007).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J. MICHAEL DEASY, Bankruptcy Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 3, 2007, the Court held a hearing on the confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan dated May 18, 2007 (Doc. No. 10) (the “Plan”) filed by Robert and Brenda Stevens (the “Debtors”) and the Objection by the Town of Winchester to Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan (Doc. No. 18) (the “Objection”). After consideration of the arguments and statements by the parties the Court entered an order overruling the Objection and stated that it would confirm the Plan. 1 This memorandum opinion will set out the Court’s reasons for overruling the Objection.

*33 This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and the “Standing Order of Referral of Title 11 Proceedings to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire,” dated January 18, 1994 (DiClerico, C.J.). This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

II. FACTS

The material facts are not in dispute. On April 27, 2007, the Town recorded a tax collectors deed to the Debtors’ mobile home and land in Winchester, New Hampshire, which the Debtors use as their homestead (the “Residence”), in the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds at book 2431, page 253. On May 7, 2007, the Town gave the Debtors a statutory notice of their right to repurchase the Residence under NH RSA 80:89 (the “Notice”).

The Debtors filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code 2 on May 15, 2007 (the “Petition Date”). Schedule A filed by the Debtors reflects ownership of the Residence with a value of $90,000.00 (the “Residence”). The Debtors claimed a homestead exemption for the full value of the Residence pursuant to NH RSA 480:1. According to the Debtors’ schedules the Residence is not subject to any liens except a real estate tax lien to the Town in the amount of $6,900.89 for 2005, 2006 and a portion of the 2007 taxes. 3 The Plan proposes to pay the Town the full amount of the real estate tax lien of $6,900.89 with interest at the rate of 9.5% over the forty-eight month term of the Plan for a total payment of $8,321.88.

III. DISCUSSION

The Town argues that the recording of the tax deed divested the Debtors of their interest in the Residence prior to the Petition Date and, therefore, the Residence is not property of the bankruptcy estate. According to the Town, once a property has been conveyed by a tax deed to the Town, the Town may treat the property as if it is the owner in fee simple. NH RSA 80:91. The Town concedes that the Debtors have a limited right to repurchase the Residence before the earlier of three years after the recording of the tax deed or forty-five days after the Notice but contends that the Debtors’ property rights in the Residence must be determined under New Hampshire law which limits the time and manner for the Debtors to repurchase their interest in the Residence. See NH RSA 80:89(11).

The Debtors contend that on the Petition Date they had the right to repurchase the Residence, thereby retaining legal and equitable rights in the Residence, which rights are property of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Because the Debtors’ rights to redeem the Residence had not expired prior to the Petition Date, they argue that they have the right to cure the default under §§ 1322(b)(3), 1322(c) and 1325(a)(5)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors cite In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519, 524 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999) in support of their argument.

The decision in Beeman is not applicable in this case. Beeman involved the question of whether a chapter 13 plan could cure a default in a mortgage on a *34 debtor’s home after the conclusion of a foreclosure auction, but before recording of a foreclosure deed, under the provisions of § 1322(c)(1). Section 1322(c)(1) provides that a chapter 13 plan may provide for the cure of a default “with respect to, or that gave rise to, a hen on the debtor’s principal residence.” In this case there is no default with respect to or giving rise to a lien. Once the tax deed was recorded, the real estate tax lien ceased to exist and the Town was the owner of the Residence. See NH RSA 80:91. The Town is correct in its position that the Debtors were not the owners of the residence on the Petition Date and, therefore, the Residence did not become property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541.

However, it is undisputed that on the Petition Date the Debtors held a statutory right to repurchase the Residence under NH RSA 80:89. The statutory right to repurchase their Residence is a property interest that did become property of the bankruptcy estate on the Petition Date. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). The transfer of legal title of the Residence to the Town does not alter the status of the Debtors’ right to repurchase as a property right which is property of the bankruptcy estate and within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Wragg v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, 317 U.S. 325, 329, 63 S.Ct. 273, 87 L.Ed. 300 (1943) (debtor’s statutory equity of redemption after recording of foreclosure deed is an interest subject to bankruptcy jurisdiction); In re Hazleton, 137 B.R. 560, 562 (Bankr.D.N.H.1992) (debtor’s equitable interests in property become property of the bankruptcy estate).

The Town contends that whatever rights or property interest the Debtors possessed on the Petition Date with respect to the repurchase of their Residence are governed by state law. Therefore, the Town argues the Debtors’ right to repurchase their Residence expired at the end of the period provided by state law — or forty-five days after the May 7, 2007 Notice. 4 The Debtors’ property interest in their Residence is created by state law. Hazleton, 137 B.R. at 562 (citing Butner v. U.S., 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979)). “That, however, is not the end of the inquiry because this Court must determine whether some federal interest is nonetheless implicated ...” Id. Even where state law creates the property interest, it must yield where it conflicts with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Patriot Portfolio, LLC v. Weinstein (In re Weinstein),

Related

In re Ferrouillat
558 B.R. 938 (S.D. Alabama, 2016)
In re Washington
551 B.R. 644 (M.D. Alabama, 2016)
Francis v. Scorpion Group, LLC (In re Francis)
489 B.R. 262 (N.D. Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2007 BNH 28, 374 B.R. 31, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2646, 2007 WL 2298243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stevens-nhb-2007.