Little v. Duncombe (In Re Duncombe)

143 B.R. 243, 92 Daily Journal DAR 10801, 27 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 617, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 2411, 1992 WL 181387
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 30, 1992
DocketBankruptcy LA 91-56733
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 143 B.R. 243 (Little v. Duncombe (In Re Duncombe)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Little v. Duncombe (In Re Duncombe), 143 B.R. 243, 92 Daily Journal DAR 10801, 27 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 617, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 2411, 1992 WL 181387 (Cal. 1992).

Opinion

AMENDED OPINION ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

SAMUEL L. BUFFORD, Bankruptcy Judge.

I.

This case involves a real race to the county recording office to record a deed under the recording act, the bane of all first year law students.

The race began with the fall of the hammer at the foreclosure sale of debtor Damon Duncombe’s Inglewood home at approximately 11:00 a.m. on December 12, 1991. The sale took place at the main entrance to the Moss Building on Burbank Boulevard in Tarzana, California, the location of the offices of R & R Conveyance, the foreclosure trustee under Duncombe’s deed of trust. The participants in the race were Duncombe and William Little, 1 mov-ant in this relief from stay motion, who made the winning bid at the foreclosure sale.

*244 Pursuant to California foreclosure law, 2 Little’s predecessor recorded a notice of default, and three months thereafter recorded and published a notice of sale. While California law permits the foreclosure sale to be postponed in certain circumstances (which are frequently important for bankruptcy purposes), 3 the sale in this case took place on the originally scheduled date.

The race routes for the two runners were quite different, but. both ended at the Los Angeles County recorder’s office in the Hall of Administration in downtown Los Angeles. The debtor’s route led first to the bankruptcy court’s chapter 13 filing office on the eighth floor of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles, to file this chapter 13 bankruptcy case. The debt- or then had to proceed to the Hall of Administration to record a notice of the bankruptcy filing.

Little’s route to the recorder’s office was somewhat more direct, but not at all easy to negotiate. His designated runner James Lee 4 first had to go upstairs to suite 303 in the Moss Building to R & R’s office to obtain a foreclosure deed. Lee was informed that the deed would be sent to be recorded in the next several days, and he was able to obtain the deed the same day only after explaining that Little had previously lost just this kind of race, and that it was extremely important to obtain the deed right away. While Lee succeeded in persuading R & R to prepare the deed the same day and to give it to him to record, he was told to come back after lunch to pick up the deed. After a quick lunch at a fast food outlet nearby, Lee returned to the R & R office, and had to wait until approximately 3:00 p.m. to obtain the deed. By then afternoon traffic on the freeway had built up, and it was 4:01 p.m. before he was able to record the deed at the Hall of Administration.

In the meantime, the debtor’s route to the recorder’s office posed difficulties as well. He already had the chapter 13 petition and supporting documents in hand to file his chapter 13 case. He was told to file these papers at the bankruptcy court before 11:00 that morning, so that he could prevent the foreclosure sale from taking place. However, for some reason he did not get to the bankruptcy court before the sale. Thus he came to the sale with the papers in hand, but with no bankruptcy petition or automatic stay in place.

After the sale was completed, Duncombe headed directly to the Federal Building, where the chapter 13 filing office is located, but it took him some time to find the address. When he finally found the building, there was no parking available at the building or anywhere nearby. He drove around the neighborhood (a designated high crime area) for some fifteen minutes before he finally found a parking spot in a private lot. It then took him ten minutes to walk back to the Federal Building, and another ten minutes to find the chapter 13 office. By this time it was almost 1:00, and the line to get into the chapter 13 filing office was very long. He waited nervously in line for 45 minutes before it was his turn at the front. He paid his $120 filing fee, and obtained a certified copy of the petition for another dollar.

By now it was almost 2:00, and he still had not had lunch. Someone told him that there was a cafeteria on the third floor, and he went there and got a quick lunch. It was almost 2:30 when he began the several-block walk to the county recorder’s office. He arrived there shortly after 3:00, and recorded his notice of filing of his bankruptcy case at 3:21 p.m. Fortunately for Duncombe, Lee did not arrive until 40 minutes later.

Having won the race to the recorder’s office, Duncombe now claims that the *245 transfer of the property in the foreclosure sale is avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code, while Little claims that the bankruptcy trustee’s bona fide purchaser status (through which the debtor claims his entitlement) is defeated by constructive notice of the sale.

II.

The Court holds that a purchaser at a foreclosure sale, who records the trustee’s deed reasonably promptly and on the same day as the sale, nevertheless does not prevail over the prior owner who files and records an intervening bankruptcy case.

This case is governed by the California recording act, which provides:

Every conveyance of real property ... is void as against any subsequent purchaser ... of the same property ... in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded

California Civil Code § 1214 (West Supp. 1992).

This is a typical race-notice recording statute. Walker v. California Mortgage Service (In re Walker), 861 F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1988); Williams v. United Investment Corp. (In re Williams), 124 B.R. 311, 315 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991). Under a race-notice recording act, the party who wins the race to the courthouse to record a conveyance of real property obtains superi- or title unless the winner has notice of the conveyance to the second finisher in the race. Walker, 861 F.2d at 600.

Here Little lost the race to the county recording office. Duncombe filed this bankruptcy case and recorded notice thereof before Little recorded his trustee’s deed. Thus the foreclosure sale is subject to avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code.

The right to avoid a real property transfer that is unrecorded at the time of filing of the bankruptcy case arises from Bankruptcy Code § 544(a)(3), the “strong arm” clause, which provides:

The trustee shall have, as of the commencement of the case, and without regard to any knowledge of the trustee or of any creditor, the rights and powers of, or may avoid any transfer of property of the debtor or any obligation incurred by the debtor that is voidable by—
[[Image here]]
(3)a bona fide purchaser of real property ... from the debtor, against whom applicable law permits such transfer to be perfected, that obtains the status of a bona fide purchaser and has perfected such transfer at the time of the commencement of the case, whether or not such a purchaser exists.

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

Related

Weiss v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Mularski)
565 B.R. 203 (D. Massachusetts, 2017)
Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A. v. Taxel
594 F.3d 1073 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Realty Portfolio, Inc. v. Hamilton
125 F.3d 292 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Realty Portfolio, Inc. v. Hamilton (In re Hamilton)
124 F.3d 292 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Great Western Bank v. Snow (In Re Snow)
201 B.R. 968 (C.D. California, 1996)
Blatnick v. Sanders (In Re Sanders)
198 B.R. 326 (S.D. California, 1996)
Davisson v. Engles (In Re Engles)
193 B.R. 23 (S.D. California, 1996)
MacDonald v. Tack (In Re MacDonald)
164 B.R. 325 (C.D. California, 1994)
Hunt v. TRC Properties, Inc. (In Re Hunt)
160 B.R. 131 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Jewett v. Shabahangi (In Re Jewett)
146 B.R. 250 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 B.R. 243, 92 Daily Journal DAR 10801, 27 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 617, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 2411, 1992 WL 181387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-duncombe-in-re-duncombe-cacb-1992.