Kaler v. Geller (In Re Geller)

314 B.R. 800, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1488, 2004 WL 2165869
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota
DecidedSeptember 2, 2004
Docket19-30141
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 314 B.R. 800 (Kaler v. Geller (In Re Geller)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kaler v. Geller (In Re Geller), 314 B.R. 800, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1488, 2004 WL 2165869 (N.D. 2004).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM A. HILL, Bankruptcy Judge.

By complaint filed March 4, 2004, and amended complaint filed June 17, 2004, Kip M. Kaler, the bankruptcy trustee in *802 this case, initiated this adversary proceeding seeking a determination that Debtors Michael F. Geller and Esther M. Geller are not entitled to a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), (3), (4) and (6) 1 . The Debtors filed separate answers on April 1, 2004, denying the allegations.

The matter was tried on August 4, 2004. From the evidence presented, the following constitutes the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Michael Geller has brokered trucks, parts and equipment for 34 years. In June 2003, he moved from Fargo, North Dakota to Arizona and worked for American Truck Salvage, Inc. from June 1, 2003 to December 1, 2003. During the term of his employment with American Truck Salvage, Michael Geller earned $45,000.00. Esther Geller was employed in Fargo by Marshall Field’s in 2003, and she also worked at Bath & Body Works during the holiday season. The Debtors have a house in Fargo, where Esther Geller has resided at all times relevant to this proceeding.

Attorney Max D. Rosenberg 2 testified he first discussed bankruptcy with the Debtors in January 2003 in connection with a number of state court proceedings in which he represented the Debtors. By spring of 2003, Michael Geller thought he might need to file for bankruptcy relief, but he needed additional time to consider it. Attorney Rosenberg testified that he explained every aspect of bankruptcy law to the Debtors, particularly Michael Geller, several times, and each time Michael Geller wanted more time to think about it. Attorney Rosenberg explained repeatedly to them that a debtor in bankruptcy must be honest and list all assets and debts, and warned them that they would have problems if they did not do so because of judgments against them and because of their high profile and well-known name. Attorney Rosenberg told them to make sure they kept themselves “clean” so they did not jeopardize a potential bankruptcy discharge.

Michael Geller told Attorney Rosenberg he was considering forming a corporation in Arizona or Nevada for the purpose of brokering auto parts. Michael Geller’s businesses in North Dakota collapsed in 2002, and he was looking to get back into independent brokering. Attorney Rosenberg testified Michael Geller was particularly interested in incorporating in Nevada because creditors could not get access to his business records under the laws of Nevada. Attorney Rosenberg advised him not to form a corporation prior to filing bankruptcy because it would only cause himself trouble.

.Notwithstanding the advice of Attorney Rosenberg, Michael Geller formed Michael Marx, LLC on March 28, 2003, under the Nevada laws of incorporation. He testified at trial that he incorporated in Nevada because its laws are favorable toward businesses. He opened a bank account in the name of Michael Marx, LLC d/b/a/ American Truck on July 7, 2003. The account was used for brokering trucks and parts, but Michael Geller also deposited personal checks into the account to fund the business and to pay personal expenses. Michael Marx has no storefront, inventory or accounts receivable. It is simply a trade name, and its only asset is a cell phone.

*803 Attorney Rosenberg also discussed with the Debtors whether to file a joint petition or separate petitions. He suggested Michael Geller file alone so that at least one of them, Esther Geller, would retain a decent credit rating. He further advised that she could file separately later if such became necessary. Michael Geller told Attorney Rosenberg that Esther Geller would not agree to file separately, and Attorney Rosenberg again advised that he thought filing a joint petition was a mistake.

Attorney Rosenberg also discussed with Michael Geller the possibility of filing for bankruptcy in Arizona. Michael Geller was interested in maximizing their bankruptcy exemptions, and the Debtors’ house in Fargo was a major factor because of their significant equity in the property. Attorney Rosenberg told them they might lose the homestead exemption in the property if Michael Geller filed in Arizona. Esther Geller made telephone calls to attorneys in Arizona who also advised the Debtors they would have problems claiming a homestead interest in North Dakota property under Arizona law.

In May 2003, Esther Geller provided Attorney Rosenberg with a list of personal property for purposes of preparing the Debtors’ bankruptcy schedules, even though the Debtors had not yet decided to file. The list included a baby grand piano that the Debtors told Attorney Rosenberg belonged to their daughter.

The Debtors ultimately filed a joint petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in North Dakota on December 5, 2003. Esther Geller completed a worksheet for Attorney Rosenberg to use in preparing the Debtors’ bankruptcy schedules, but Attorney Rosenberg testified he was unable to file the Debtors’ bankruptcy schedules by the December 19, 2003 deadline because he did not have all the information he needed from the Debtors. The Debtors were granted an extension to file their schedules until December 31, 2003. Esther Geller visited Attorney Rosenberg at his office during the weeks prior to filing the schedules, but he did not go through the petition item by item with her. Michael Geller returned to Fargo on December 21, 2003, and Attorney Rosenberg obtained from him the additional information he needed.

Attorney Rosenberg brought the completed schedules to Esther Geller while she was working on December 31, 2003. She was busy with customers and signed the schedules and statement of affairs without reading them. She did not ever subsequently read them. Michael Geller likewise stated that he did not read the schedules and statement of affairs prior to signing them. Although he was unsure whether he ever read them, he testified he did “peruse” them later.

The Debtors filed their schedules and statement of financial affairs on December 31, 2003. The statement of financial affairs stated the Debtors did not receive any income from employment or from the operation of a business during the two years preceding 2003. It also states the Debtors were holding a baby grand piano belonging to their daughter. The petition does not disclose any bank accounts held by the Debtors.

The Debtors filed amended schedules B, C, and F, Statement of Financial Affairs, and Statement of Intention on January 5, 2004, about an hour before the first meeting of creditors in their case. The amended statement of financial affairs stated the Debtors were unable to obtain the books and records from the buyers of the Debtors’ previous businesses. It also stated Esther Geller earned $3,500.00 in the past two years from various part time jobs, but did not say anything about Michael Gel *804 ler’s employment or his operation of Michael Marx or American Truck.

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

Related

Brown v. Peterson
D. Nebraska, 2021
Doeling v. Gapp
D. North Dakota, 2019
St. Clair v. Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, L.L.C.
550 B.R. 655 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Horizon Financial Bank v. Borstad (In re Borstad)
550 B.R. 803 (D. North Dakota, 2016)
Doeling ex rel. Berger v. Berger (In re Berger)
497 B.R. 47 (D. North Dakota, 2013)
Kaler v. Charles (In re Charles)
474 B.R. 680 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
Sullivan v. Bieniek (In Re Bieniek)
417 B.R. 133 (D. Minnesota, 2009)
Petro v. Miller (In Re Miller)
403 B.R. 804 (W.D. Missouri, 2009)
In Re Barrows
399 B.R. 506 (D. Minnesota, 2009)
Kaler v. Huynh (In Re Huynh)
392 B.R. 802 (D. North Dakota, 2008)
McDow v. Wamsley (In Re Wamsley)
385 B.R. 619 (N.D. West Virginia, 2008)
Seaver v. Markey (In Re Markey)
378 B.R. 594 (D. Minnesota, 2007)
United States Trustee v. Arnold (In Re Arnold)
369 B.R. 266 (W.D. Virginia, 2007)
Fokkena v. Peterson
356 B.R. 468 (N.D. Iowa, 2006)
First State Bank v. Braathen (In Re Braathen)
364 B.R. 688 (D. North Dakota, 2006)
Rutland v. Petersen (In Re Petersen)
323 B.R. 512 (N.D. Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 B.R. 800, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1488, 2004 WL 2165869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaler-v-geller-in-re-geller-ndb-2004.