Menninger v. Attiyah (In Re Midwest Mobile Technologies, Inc.)
Opinion
*788 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY
Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party (“Motion”) (Doc. 20). The Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 23). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be DENIED.
The complaint seeks to avoid and recover an alleged preferential transfer of $439,117.56 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b) and 550(a). The transfer was made to KeyBank National Association (“KeyBank”) within the ninety day period preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The Defendants, guarantors of a loan from KeyBank to the Debtor, are not alleged to have received the transferred funds at any time. 1 Notwithstanding, the complaint seeks recovery from the Defendants only. KeyBank is not a party to this action. By their Motion, the Defendants argue that this proceeding must be dismissed, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19, for failure to join KeyBank. 2
Section 547(b)(1) permits a trustee to recover a transfer “for the benefit of a creditor.” 3 A guarantor of a debtor is a *789 “creditor” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A). In re C-L Cartage Co., 899 F.2d 1490, 1493 (6th Cir.1990). Thus, a transfer in payment of a guaranteed debt may constitute a transfer “for the benefit of a creditor.” See id. If a trustee proves the remaining elements under § 547(b), he or she may obtain recovery from the guarantor. See 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(1) (“[T]he trustee may recover ... the value of such property ... from ... the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made.”); see also In re Denochick, 287 B.R. 632 (W.D.Pa.2003) (affirming decision permitting trustee to recover value of preferential transfers from guarantors); In re M2Direct, Inc., 282 B.R. 60 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2002) (permitting trustee to recover value of preferential transfers from guarantors); In re Duccilli Formal Wear, Inc., Ch. 7 Case No. 1-80-01457, Adv. No. 1-81-0233, 8 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1180, 1982 Bankr.LEXIS 4641 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio Mar. 8, 1982) (Perlman, J.) (same). 4 Based upon the foregoing alone, this Court concludes that it is not necessary for the Plaintiff bring suit against KeyBank.
Although the Court is unaware of a Rule 19 motion within the context of a preference action against a guarantor, other Rule 19 case law supports this conclusion by analogy. Section 550(a)(1) is said to establish joint liability comparable to the joint and several liability of joint tortfea-sors. See In re World Bazaar Franchise Corp., 167 B.R. 985, 989 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1994). As to the indispensable nature of joint tortfeasors under Rule 19, the Sixth Circuit has stated:
It is beyond peradventure that joint tortfeasors are not indispensable parties in the federal forum. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes accompanying Rule 19 provide that “a tortfeasor with the usual ‘joint and several’ liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability” and “Joinder of these tortfeasors continues to be regulated by Rule 20”.
Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 710 F.2d 1194, 1198-99 (6th Cir.1983) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party (Doc. 20) will be DENIED. An order to this effect will be entered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
304 B.R. 787 (Menninger v. Attiyah (In Re Midwest Mobile Technologies, Inc.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.