Matter of Bergen

163 B.R. 377, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 375, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 105, 1994 WL 37872
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedFebruary 4, 1994
DocketBankruptcy 92-11932-8B7
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 163 B.R. 377 (Matter of Bergen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Bergen, 163 B.R. 377, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 375, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 105, 1994 WL 37872 (Fla. 1994).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTIONS

THOMAS E. BAYNES, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS CAUSE came on for consideration upon Trustee’s Objection to Exemptions. The Court upon considering the Objection of Trustee, together with the record, and legal briefs submitted through counsel for the parties, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, based on this core proceeding:

Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (Code) on September 8, 1992. *378 Debtor filed all pertinent schedules including schedule C which is a list of debtor’s property claimed as exempt. There were no objections to exemptions filed within the 30 day period permitted by virtue .of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4003(b).

On March 9, 1993, Debtors’ case was converted to Chapter 7. Debtors were required to file a full report and accounting, including inventory and any unpaid debts. Debtors filed their accounting with respect to action taken prior to conversion, but did not amend their schedules which were deemed filed in the Chapter 7 case. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1019(1)(A). The Chapter 7 meeting of creditors was held April 13,1993, and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected to Debtor’s exemptions. Debtors now assert Trustee is not pei’mitted to object to exemptions in the Chapter 7 case because no objection was made to the exemptions in the Chapter 11 case. The exemptions have not changed as a result of conversion to Chapter 7, and the creditors had an opportunity to object in the prior Chapter 11 case.

Generally, objections to Exemptions are addressed pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4003(b). The Rule provides: the trustee or any creditor has 30 days after the first scheduled meeting of creditors to object to the debtor’s claim of exemptions, or within 30 days after filing an amendment to the schedule of exemptions. Debtor contends where no objections are filed, as in the instant Chapter 11 case, the exemptions are allowed even if there is clearly no statutory right to the claimed exemption. Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992).

Upon conversion from Chapter 11 or Chapter 13, to a Chapter 7 case 11 U.S.C. § 348 causes certain changes to occur. Although an order of conversion constitutes a Chapter 7 “order for relief,” the dates of the original petition, and order for relief under Chapter 11, continue in the main case to control as the filing date for the ease. 1 There are, however, certain carve-out exceptions to the filing date that are not germane to the instant case. 2

Since the conversion order is an order for relief, a new meeting of creditors is required upon conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2003; See F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Richards, 780 F.2d 24 (8th Cir.1985). “This meeting of creditors is not a continuation or an extension of the meeting of creditors in the previous Chapter 11 proceeding. Rather, it is a separate and distinct meeting....” Id. at 25.

The services of the debtor in possession or Chapter 11 trustee are terminated upon conversion. 11 U.S.C. § 348(e). All non-exempt property must be surrendered to the interim trustee. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1019(4); see In re Daniels, 79 B.R. 88 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1987) (wages not claimed as exempt upon conversion from Chapter 13 are property of the estate).

Courts are split on whether the original filing date or the date of conversion controls when determining the property of the estate. See Lindberg v. Lindberg (In re Lindberg), 735 F.2d 1087, 1090 (8th Cir.1984) (and cases cited therein); In re Lepper, 58 B.R. 896 (Bankr.D.Md.1986); Arkison v. Swift (In re Swift), 81 B.R. 621 (Bankr.W.D.Wa.1987); In re Gorski, 85 B.R. 155 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1988); In re Wright, 99 B.R. 339 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1989) (Debtor’s exemptions are determined as of date of original Chapter 11 filing, rather than date bankruptcy case is converted to Chapter 7). This Court has held the original filing date controls with respect to ascertaining property of the estate. Gorski, 85 B.R. at 156.

*379 Counsel for both parties rely on opinions that stand for their respective propositions. In In re Halbert, 146 B.R. 185 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1992), the Court held there is no second chance for objection to exemptions previously claimed in Chapter 11, absent an amendment to the schedules of a debtor’s exemptions. Id. at 188. However, Debtors and Trustee accurately point-out that Hal-bert is not identical to the instant case. The rationale in Halbert was predicated on a case having begun through involuntary Chapter 7, converted by the debtor to Chapter 11, only to be subsequently converted to Chapter 7. This Court finds the fact specific scenario in Halbert to be a distinguishing characteristic and should not be dispositive to the outcome in the instant case.

In Leydet v. Leydet (In re Leydet), 150 B.R. 641 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1993), the Court addressed the issue presented in the instant case. However, the Court in Leydet, in admitting there was no authority for its decision, relied upon “practical sense” and not any defined rule of law. The court concluded there is a period of time in which a creditor or the trustee may make objection after a converted Chapter 7 creditor’s meeting. Id. at 644. Debtors suggest the lack of authority espoused in Leydet should be reason for this Court to not rely upon the case as authority. However, this Court recognizes the merit in the Leydet decision and is compelled to analyze that Court’s rationale.

A debtor in Chapter 11,12, or 13, is vested with some control over the treatment of creditors by virtue of the plan of reorganization. In Chapter 11, without a trustee to object to the exemptions the debtor claims, objections must be made by creditors. In fact, the exemptions may be of little importance to a creditor in the earlier stages of Chapter 11 ease, especially if it is receiving an acceptable distribution under the plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129

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

Related

In Re Quillen
408 B.R. 601 (D. Maryland, 2009)
In Re Fonke
321 B.R. 199 (S.D. Texas, 2005)
In Re Koss
319 B.R. 317 (D. Massachusetts, 2005)
In Re Hopkins
317 B.R. 726 (E.D. Michigan, 2004)
Campbell v. Stewart (In Re Campbell)
313 B.R. 313 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)
In Re Lang
276 B.R. 716 (S.D. Florida, 2002)
In Re Booth
259 B.R. 413 (M.D. Florida, 2001)
In Re Mims
249 B.R. 378 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
In Re Page
240 B.R. 548 (W.D. Michigan, 1999)
Alexander v. Jensen-Carter (In Re Alexander)
239 B.R. 911 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
DiBraccio v. Ferretti (In Re Ferretti)
230 B.R. 883 (S.D. Florida, 1999)
In Re Bemish
200 B.R. 408 (M.D. Florida, 1995)
In Re Brown
178 B.R. 722 (E.D. Tennessee, 1995)
In Re Havanec
175 B.R. 920 (N.D. Ohio, 1994)
Weissman v. Carr (In Re Weissman)
173 B.R. 235 (M.D. Florida, 1994)
In Re De Kleinman
172 B.R. 764 (S.D. New York, 1994)
In Re Toronto
165 B.R. 746 (D. Connecticut, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 B.R. 377, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 375, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 105, 1994 WL 37872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-bergen-flmb-1994.