In re Universal Hotel, Inc.
This text of 126 B.R. 6 (In re Universal Hotel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
Maria Luisa Contreras, Esq. as an Independent Fiduciary, appointed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to protect the interests of the Pension Fund of the Teamster’s Union, filed a Motion Requesting Order (docket entry 29). The gist of this request is that Movant needs an order authorizing a Motion for Abandonment filed by the Trustee so it may continue with the procedures pending in the Courts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The file shows the Trustee filed a Motion for Abandonment of Property and Other Relief on January 31, 1991 (docket entry 25). He certified notice of this Motion to the U.S. Trustee and to counsel for the Debtor. On February 6, 1991, the Trustee also certified that a true and correct copy of this Motion, without its exhibits, was mailed to all creditors and parties in interest as appears from the attached list. Furthermore, a certificate from the Clerk of [7]*7Court shows the Motion for Abandonment has not been opposed.1
11 U.S.C. Section 554 and Bankruptcy-Rule 6007 govern the abandonment or disposition of property of an estate. Specifically, Bankruptcy Rule 6007(a) states: “Unless otherwise directed by the court the trustee or debtor in possession shall give notice of a proposed abandonment or disposition of property to all creditors, indenture trustees and committees appointed or elected pursuant to the Code. An objection may be filed and served within 15 days of mailing of the notice, or within the time fixed by the court.” (our emphasis)2 This procedure complements Code Section 554(a) which also speaks to the authority of the trustee to abandon, after notice and a hearing, property of an estate that is burdensome or of inconsequential value.3
A motion of abandonment according to the cited Rule, should be filed when a party in interest requires the trustee or debtor in possession to abandon property under 11 U.S.C. 554(b). Under these circumstances, 11 U.S.C. 554(b) calls for the court to enter an order granting or denying the abandonment.
Lastly, Bankruptcy Rule 6007(c) states that a hearing shall be set only if a timely objection is made as prescribed by subdivision (a), or if a motion is filed as required by subdivision (b).4
The difference between a notice of abandonment and the motion for abandonment contemplated in Bankruptcy Rule 6007 goes to the very root of the 1978 amendments to the U.S. Bankruptcy Act, now known as the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.5 The U.S. Bankruptcy Code seeks to remove U.S. Bankruptcy Judges from administrative functions which take place in bankruptcy cases. To accomplish this goal, Congress gave the U.S. Trustee, the bankruptcy trustees and debtors in possession certain powers over the administration of matters which may arise in a bankruptcy case, which must nevertheless be notified when exercised.6 Both Code Section 554 and Bankruptcy Rule 6007 recognize the distinction between administrative and adjudicative functions. This difference is noted by the choice of the word “notice” in B.R. 6007(a), and the use of the word “motion” in B.R. 6007(b). A trustee exercises his powers of administrating the case when he files a request for abandonment as a notice as opposed to a motion.
Wherefore, the Court considers the Trustee’s “Motion for Abandonment of Property and other Relief” as a notice of abandonment filed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 554(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 6007(a). There is prima facie evidence on file which shows it was notified and has not been opposed. Hence, Ms. Contreras’ request for an order approving said abandonment is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
126 B.R. 6, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 523, 1991 WL 58831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-universal-hotel-inc-prd-1991.