Matter of Perry

56 B.R. 663, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6902
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedJanuary 14, 1986
Docket19-50156
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 B.R. 663 (Matter of Perry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Perry, 56 B.R. 663, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6902 (Ga. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION

ROBERT F. HERSHNER, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

Debtor, Johnny E. Perry, d/b/a J & R Granite Co., filed his petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 30, 1985. Five parties in interest, Phyllis M. Beasley, f/k/a Phyllis M. Chastain, and her minor children, Christy Diana Chastain and David Paul Chastain; Joanna B. Hannah; and Ray B. Burruss, Jr., (“Objectors”) object to the confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, asserting that Debtor is not eligible for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:

Only an individual with regular income that owes, on the date of the filing of the petition, noneontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts of less than $100,000 and noneontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $350,000, or an individual with regular income and such individual’s spouse, except a stockbroker or a commodity broker, that owe, on the date of the filing of the petition, noneontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts that aggregate less than $100,000 and noncontin-gent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $350,000 may be a debtor under chapter 13 of this title.

11 U.S.C.A. § 109(e) (West 1979).

If Debtor’s noneontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts, as of the date he filed his Chapter 13 petition, equal or exceed $100,-000, then Debtor may not be a debtor under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Debtor lists in his Chapter 13 Statement unsecured debts of $84,109.17. Debtor schedules the claim of the Objectors to be $65,000. The Objectors assert that they have a noneontingent, liquidated, unsecured claim of $83,493.80. If the Objectors are correct, then Debtor’s noneontingent, liquidated, unsecured debt would exceed $100,000, and Debtor would not be eligible for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In discussing section 109(e), Collier on Bankruptcy notes:

Within section 109(e) are contained the standards which must be complied with for an individual to be eligible to be a debtor under chapter 13, which governs the adjustment of debts of an individual with regular income. A purpose of that chapter is to allow the small sole proprietor, for whom the reorganization process provided in chapter 11 is too cumbersome a procedure or otherwise inappropriate, to obtain relief under the Bankruptcy Code. The eligibility critieria [sic] set forth in respect to this provision are specific and restrictive, with monetary amounts established to govern eligibility *665 so as to insure that those persons for whose benefit the chapter is directed are those who employ its provisions. Thus, the fundamental purpose of section 109(e) is to establish the dollar limitations on the amount of indebtedness that an individual with regular income can incur and yet file under chapter 13.
In contrast to provisions involving chapter 7 debtors, the language of section 109(e) is drafted explicitly to require that a chapter 13 debtor owe debts on the date that the petition is filed. However, while the debtor must owe some debts, he cannot owe debts in too large an amount and still expect to take advantage of the streamlined rehabilitative scheme provided in chapter 13. Thus, the core of subsection (e) is directed toward the establishment of monetary amounts which determine eligibility for chapter 13 relief....

2 Collier on Bankruptcy 11109.05 (15th ed. 1985) (footnotes omitted).

The claim of the Objectors is based upon an order of the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation dated November 13, 1984. In the order, the Administrative Law Judge made the following award:

Johnny Perry, doing business as J and R Granite Company, a sole proprietorship, Employer, is hereby directed to pay PHYLLIS M. CHASTAIN, Widow/Claimant, compensation at the rate of $148.50 per week, for her use and the use of the minor children, commencing September 8, 1983, and continuing until terminated according to Law.
Johnny Perry, doing business as J and R Granite Company, Employer, is further directed to pay the medical expenses and burial expenses as found above, subject to the statutory maximum of $1,500.00 for burial expenses.
Johnny Perry, doing business as J and R Granite Company, Employer, is further directed to pay the Claimants’ attorneys in a lump sum one-third (33Vs%) of benefits to be paid to the Widow/Claimant from September 8, 1983, to the date of this Award and one-third (33Vs%) of benefits to be paid hereafter, all without deduction from benefits paid or payable to the Widow/Claimant, subject to only 400 weeks unless sooner terminated according to Law.
Accrued income benefits, medical and burial expenses, and assessed attorney’s fees are due and payable upon issuance and receipt of this Award.

Chastain v. Perry, Claim No. 253-90-6326, slip op. at 2 (Ga.Admin.Law Ct. Nov. 13, 1984).

The award of the Administrative Law Judge was reviewed de novo by the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation, and by order dated February 26, 1985, the Board made the Administrative Law Judge’s award the Board’s award. Because Debtor did not pay the Board’s award timely, Phyllis M. Beasley, f/k/a Phyllis M. Chastain, and her minor children brought an action in the Superior Court of Elbert County, Georgia to have the Board’s award to them made the judgment of the Superior Court of Elbert County, as provided for in section 34-9-106 of the Georgia Code. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-106 (Michie 1982). On June 25, 1985, the superior court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Mrs. Beasley and her minor children.

The judgment of the Superior Court of Elbert County is final and binding and establishes a noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debt owed by Debtor. Debtor argues that the debt is contingent because the amount of the award would be reduced should one of the minor children involved die. Contrary to Debtor’s argument, Georgia law provides that “compensation awarded jointly to the spouse and children [as dependents] is not diminished simply because one of their members is no longer entitled to participate in its use.” Georgia Forestry Commission v. Harrell, 98 Ga. App. 238, 240, 105 S.E.2d 461, 462 (1958) (emphasis added). See also United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Dunbar, 112 Ga.App. 102, 109, 143 S.E.2d 663, 669 (1965). The conditions which require termination of a dependent’s compensation *666 award are set forth in section 34-9-13(e) of the Georgia Code. O.C.G.A.

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

Related

In Re Gordon
127 B.R. 574 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
In Re Andrews
78 B.R. 420 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 B.R. 663, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-perry-gamb-1986.