International Harvester Co. v. Kleinsasser (In Re Kleinsasser)

12 B.R. 452, 4 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1185, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 3423, 7 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1275
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota
DecidedJuly 7, 1981
Docket19-40045
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 12 B.R. 452 (International Harvester Co. v. Kleinsasser (In Re Kleinsasser)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
International Harvester Co. v. Kleinsasser (In Re Kleinsasser), 12 B.R. 452, 4 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1185, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 3423, 7 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1275 (S.D. 1981).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

PEDER K. ECKER, Bankruptcy Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Eugene Allen Kleinsasser, d/b/a D & E Trucking, hereinafter Debtor, is in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. International Harvester Company and International Harvester Credit Corporation, hereinafter Creditors, seek relief from the automatic stay to foreclose their security interest in seven trucks. The Complaint was filed on March 13, 1981, and set for hearing on April 9, 1981. The April 9, 1981, hearing was treated as a preliminary hearing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(e). At the preliminary hearing, this Bankruptcy Court found that: 1) Debtor *453 appears to have an equity in the seven trucks; 2) there is a reasonable likelihood that Debtor may prevail at a final hearing; 3)the intent of Congress was that a debtor have a reasonable opportunity to reorganize; 4) the final hearing on Creditors’ request for relief from the automatic stay be held in thirty days; and 5) the automatic stay be continued pending a final hearing.

A final hearing was held on May 8, 1981. Counsel stipulated that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization by Debtor. Consequently, the issue was narrowed to adequate protection. Debtor made the following offer of adequate protection:

“1) To continue to maintain the insurance which is required under the retail installment contracts. This includes a loss payable clause in the name of Creditors.
2) To continue to perform regular maintenance.
3) To provide Creditors’ Attorney with photocopies of weekly and monthly reports that the U.S. Trustee requires in a Chapter 11 reorganization.
4) To make a periodic cash payment of $2,100.00 a month for depreciation as required by 11 U.S.C. § 361 until a Chapter 11 plan is confirmed.
5) To allow Creditors to make spot checks to verify the manner in which "the equipment is used and being maintained.”

The record indicates Creditors found items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Debtor’s offer of adequate protection reasonable. Creditors disputed item No. 4 as not being adequate protection.

In regard to item No. 4, Debtor used Creditors’ testimony on valuation of trucks and straight line method of depreciation to reach a figure of $2,100.00 a month. Creditors contend the fair market value of trucks is that listed in Debtor’s A — 2 schedules and that a higher rate of depreciation is applicable due to the nature of Debtor’s business. This point is exemplified by Creditors’ Exhibit No. 1 wherein they ask for a cash payment of $5,067.00 a month. Creditors further argue they are entitled to interest dating back to the order for relief as provided by 11 U.S.C. § 506. At the conclusion of final arguments, this Court took the issue of adequate protection under advisement.

On June 16, 1981, Creditors gave Notice to this Court and to Debtor that more than thirty days had expired following the final hearing on relief from automatic stay without the Court determining whether or not the automatic stay be continued as provided by Interim Bankruptcy Rule 4001. The Notice further alleged Creditors intend to pursue appropriate remedies to foreclose their interest in state court.

On June 30, 1981, Debtor made Application for Preliminary Injunction and Order for Hearing. A hearing was held on July 2, 1981. Debtor requested a preliminary injunction enjoining Creditors from pursuing remedies in state court to recover the trucks.

In responsive pleadings, Creditors made a Motion to Dismiss Debtor’s Application for Preliminary Injunction. At the hearing, this Court granted Debtor’s request for a preliminary injunction and required Debtor to post a $2,100.00 bond pending the hearing on a permanent injunction July 7, 1981.

CREDITORS’ CONTENTION

Creditors contend failure of the Court to enter an order within thirty days from date of final hearing permitted automatic stay to terminate as provided by Interim Rule 4001(a).

DEBTOR’S CONTENTIONS

1) To allow Creditors to pursue to recover their collateral in state court because the automatic stay has expired would result in irreparable injury, loss or damage to Debt- or, and would cause Debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization efforts to collapse.

2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) is authority for the Court to issue a preliminary injunction after notice to an adverse party.

*454 3) The trucks that Debtor owns and Creditors have a security interest in are necessary for Debtor’s reorganization effort.

4) 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) empowers a bankruptcy court to issue any orders, process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of Title 11.

5) Debtor, having defended both a preliminary hearing and a final hearing as part of his reorganization effort, should be granted the benefit of a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court on his offer of adequate protection.

ISSUE

Whether a bankruptcy court can order adequate protection and issue a permanent injunction enjoining a creditor who seeks recovery of collateral in state court when: thirty days have expired from a final hearing on relief from the automatic stay and a bankruptcy court has not continued the stay or rendered a decision and it allegedly results in irreparable injury, loss or damage to a debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization efforts.

For purposes of this Memorandum Decision and Order, this Bankruptcy Court adopts the record from the Preliminary Hearing, Final Hearing, and Hearing on Application for Preliminary Injunction.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

First, this Bankruptcy Court finds it has the power to issue a preliminary injunction in an adversary proceeding as provided by Bankruptcy Rule 765 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

Second, this Bankruptcy Court agrees with Debtor that 11 U.S.C. § 105 is the statute to be applied in this situation in order that Debtor be given one meaningful opportunity to rehabilitate himself. 11 U.S.C. § 105 provides:

“The bankruptcy court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.”

The bankruptcy court in the case of In Re Walker, (1980, Bkrtcy. BC WD VA) 3 B.R. 213, applied 11 U.S.C.

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

Related

Matter of 47th and Belleview Partners
95 B.R. 117 (W.D. Missouri, 1988)
In re Tulane Hotel Investors Ltd. Partnership
68 B.R. 145 (E.D. Louisiana, 1986)
In Re McNeely
51 B.R. 816 (D. Utah, 1985)
In Re Original Wild West Foods, Inc.
45 B.R. 202 (W.D. Texas, 1984)
In Appeal of in Re California Gulf Partnership
48 B.R. 959 (E.D. Louisiana, 1984)
In Re Rolanco, Inc.
43 B.R. 150 (E.D. Missouri, 1984)
Barclay Properties v. Small (In Re Small)
38 B.R. 143 (D. Maryland, 1984)
Jones v. Wood (In Re Wood)
33 B.R. 320 (D. Idaho, 1983)
In Re Codesco, Inc.
24 B.R. 746 (S.D. New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 B.R. 452, 4 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1185, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 3423, 7 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-harvester-co-v-kleinsasser-in-re-kleinsasser-sdb-1981.