Matter of Winn

49 B.R. 237, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 3, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6157
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMay 9, 1985
DocketBankruptcy 84-2535
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 49 B.R. 237 (Matter of Winn) 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 Winn, 49 B.R. 237, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 3, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6157 (Fla. 1985).

Opinion

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge.

THIS IS the next chapter of a turbulent history of Newton Alfred Winn (Debtor) who is currently seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The matter under consideration is a Motion to Dismiss this Chapter 11 case filed by School Pictures of Mississippi, Inc. (School Pictures). The Motion seeks a dismissal on the basis that this case was filed in bad faith and for this reason it represents “cause” for dismissal under § 1112(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

To put the Motion under consideration in proper perspective, a brief recital of the historical facts germane to the Motion should be helpful.

On October 27, 1983, the Debtor, who is a practicing attorney, filed a Voluntary Petition for Relief in this Court under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On April 17, 1984, School Pictures filed a Motion to Dismiss and sought a dismissal of the *238 Chapter 11 ease on the basis it was not filed in good faith.

The Motion was considered in due course and the Court having considered the entire record and undisputed facts and the events as revealed by the record of the proceedings which preceded the filing of the Voluntary Petition concluded that the voluntary petition of the Debtor was not, in fact, filed in good faith and, therefore, it was proper to grant the Motion and dismiss the Chapter 11 case and on September 5, 1984 this Court entered an Order of Dismissal. The Order of Dismissal and the Memorandum Opinion specifically found that the primary, if not the sole purpose of filing the petition for relief under Chapter 11 was to frustrate the contempt proceedings against the Debtor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 43 B.R. 25. This record leaves no doubt that the Chapter 11 case was filed as an attempt by the Debtor to circumvent or escape the consequences of the contempt judgment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and it was never a legitimate aim to be achieved under the rehabilitation provisions of Chapter 11. This Court found in that case that the aim to be achieved by the Debtor constituted an impermissible use of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the original Chapter 11 case, counsel for the Debtor filed a Motion for Rehearing, but prior to the scheduled hearing, the Motion was withdrawn. Thereafter, School Pictures resumed its efforts to collect the monies claimed to be due by the Debtor based on the contempt judgment by levying upon the properties of the Debtor and on the summary judgment entered by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.

On November 6, 1984, B.F. Wood, M.O. Quick, F.G. Chinnis and Richard Earle, Jr. filed an Involuntary Petition against the Debtor claiming they are holding claims against the Debtor not contingent as to liability amounting in the aggregate in excess of the value of any liens $5,000 or over. The Involuntary Petition was signed by Richard Earle, Jr., by M.O. Quick and F.G. Chinnis, but not signed by B.F. Wood. On November 23, 1984, not to the surprise of anyone, the Debtor consented to the entry of the Order for Relief. The Debtor did not file a Statement of Affairs, Schedule of Assets and Liabilities within the time prescribed by Rule 1007(c); he did not file a Disclosure Statement or a Plan of Reorganization within the time prescribed by § 1121(b) and did not seek an extension of time as permitted by § 1121(d). The Schedules ultimately filed revealed that the total unsecured debts of this Debtor are less than $50,000 and by far, the largest creditor of this Debtor is School Pictures, who obtained a money judgment in Mississippi in the amount of $154,000. In addition, the Debtor accumulated contempt fines in excess of $268,000, which fines are accruing at a rate of $500 a day.

The record reveals that the Involuntary Petition was not prepared by Mr. Richard Earle, one of the petitioning creditors, a practicing attorney, but was presented to him for signature although it is not clear by whom. It is without dispute that he consented to sign and did sign the petition. Based on the evidence in this record, the inference is not far fetched that the Involuntary Petition was, in fact, prepared by the Debtor himself, a fact indirectly supported by Mr. Earle who adopted this assumption to be not baseless. It is equally clear from the depositions on file that the other petitioning Creditors were, and still are, friends of the Debtor. For instance, Mr. Chinnis is a friend of long standing of the Debtor, having been a member of a Masonic Lodge of which the Debtor was also a member and over the years, Mr. Chinnis developed a close relationship and friendship with the Debtor. Neither is Mr. Quick a stranger to the Debtor. The Debt- or purchased property from both Mr. Quick and Mr. Chinnis; has known Mr. Quick for several years and from time to time visited Mr. Quick at Gulf Hammock, Florida, where all of them own some property. Mr. Chinnis’ claim is based on an alleged loan made to him in the munificient sum of $200. It further appears that prior to the filing of the Involuntary Petition, the Debt- *239 or visited Mr. Chinnis in October and on October 6 borrowed the $200 from Mr. Chinnis in order to get back to Florida which is the basis of Mr. Chinnis’ claim against the Debtor. The Debtor, upon his return to Florida, called Mr. Chinnis and while it is not clear, it is without dispute that Mr. Chinnis received the Involuntary Petition in the mail which he signed and returned the same to some attorney, but he was unable to identify the attorney is not unreasonable to assume that the attorney was Mr. Albert I. Gordon, the present and former counsel of record for the Debtor, who not only filed the original voluntary Chapter 11, but also the consent in the present case to the entry of the order for relief.

As noted, the Involuntary Petition was also signed by Mr. Quick at the request of the Debtor. Thus, it is evident that all three petitioning creditors signed the Involuntary Petition apparently prepared by the Debtor and at his request.

Based on the following, there is no doubt that this present Chapter 11 case is merely an attempt by the Debtor to accomplish something indirectly which he was unable to accomplish directly, that is, to maintain a viable Chapter 11 case in order to hide under the protection of the automatic stay triggered by filing of a petition for relief either by or against a debtor under §§ 301, 302 and 303 of the Bankruptcy Code. It is equally without doubt and it is evident that the sole purpose of maintaining this involuntary Chapter 11 case instigated by the Debtor himself was for the sole purpose to again frustrate School Pictures in its attempt to collect its judgments. This being the case, it is clear that this case should also be dismissed as a case commenced by a petition filed in bad faith unless the concept of bad faith plays no meaningful role in an involuntary case.

At first blush, it appears that creditors have an absolute right to institute an involuntary case against a debtor provided they are eligible to be petitioning creditors under § 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and their motive is of no consequence. There is no evidence in this record that any of the petitioning creditors do not, in fact, hold a valid claim against this Debtor, claims which are not contingent as to liability.

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

Related

Marciano v. Fahs (In Re Marciano)
459 B.R. 27 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
In Re Mi La Sul
380 B.R. 546 (C.D. California, 2007)
In Re Key Auto Liquidation Center, Inc.
372 B.R. 74 (N.D. Florida, 2007)
In Re Valdez
250 B.R. 386 (D. Oregon, 1999)
In Re Kingston Square Associates
214 B.R. 713 (S.D. New York, 1997)
U.S. Optical, Inc., In re
991 F.2d 792 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)
In Re Caucus Distributors, Inc.
106 B.R. 890 (E.D. Virginia, 1989)
In Re Amburgey
68 B.R. 768 (S.D. Indiana, 1987)
In Re Winn
53 B.R. 645 (M.D. Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 B.R. 237, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 3, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-winn-flmb-1985.