Norwood v. Crabtree (In Re Crabtree)

37 B.R. 426, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 6277
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedFebruary 10, 1984
DocketBankruptcy No. 3-83-01116, Adv. No. 3-84-0009
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 37 B.R. 426 (Norwood v. Crabtree (In Re Crabtree)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Norwood v. Crabtree (In Re Crabtree), 37 B.R. 426, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 6277 (Tenn. 1984).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

CLIVE W. BARE, Bankruptcy Judge.

An involuntary chapter 7 petition, 11 U.S. C.A. § 303 (1979), was filed against the debtor on July 14,1983. An order for relief was entered on August 22, 1983. Asserting *427 various constitutional privileges, the debtor has refused to disclose his assets and liabilities. 1

I

The trustee’s complaint seeking redirection of the debtor’s mail, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.A. § 521 and § 542(e) (1979), was filed on January 12,1984. Alleging that he is unable to identify, collect, and protect assets of the estate, the trustee requests an order directing the defendant Knoxville Postmaster to forward to him all mail addressed to: (1) the debtor at his business, home, or any other address; (2) defendant Patricia Shelby; and (3) some sixty-eight (68) entities in which the debtor purportedly has an ownership interest. However, the trustee does not seek redirection and turnover of any mail from the debtor’s attorneys containing privileged communications. Upon the trustee’s application and pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 7012(a) and 9006(c), the court entered an order shortening the time within which to respond to the complaint. Although Patricia Shelby timely filed a motion for a more definite statement, which was granted, the debtor defaulted. The defendant Postmaster filed an answer wherein he states that the United States Postal Service delivers mail by address rather than by name. Hence, addresses are necessary before the Postmaster can comply with any order redirecting mail.

At a hearing on the trustee’s motion to enter a default judgment, held on February 2, 1984, the court concluded that there was no justifiable excuse for the debtor’s failure to timely respond to the complaint. 2 Although the court determined that a default judgment would be entered against the debtor, testimony was proffered by the trustee to enable the court to determine the appropriate scope of an order redirecting the debtor’s mail. A letter dated November 4, 1983, from the debtor’s attorney to the trustee’s attorney was introduced as an exhibit. This letter identifies fifty-nine (59) entities some or all of which had been included by the debtor in a previous personal financial statement. Based on the debtor’s representations in various financial statements, the trustee believes that the debtor has, or had, some ownership interest in each of the sixty-eight (68) entities listed in Exhibit A to the complaint.

II

The surrender of recorded information relating to property of the estate is among the duties of a debtor in a case in which a trustee is serving. 11 U.S.C.A. § 521(3) (1979). Furthermore, 11 U.S.C.A. § 542(e) (1979) provides:

Subject to any applicable privilege, after notice and a hearing, the court may order an attorney, accountant, or other person that holds recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to the debtor’s property or financial affairs, to disclose such recorded information to the trustee.

On the basis of these statutory provisions the trustee contends he is entitled to redirection and receipt of mail addressed to either the debtor or any of the sixty-eight (68) entities in which the debtor is believed to have, or have had, an ownership interest. 3

*428 Describing the duties of a receiver under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the editors of Collier on Bankruptcy state:

The receiver must at once secure the bankrupt’s mail, either by directing the postal authorities to make delivery to the receiver himself or to a new post office box opened by the receiver. In a business which had accounts receivable, the mail usually contains checks from account debtors in payment of the account and, if the bankrupt is permitted to obtain such checks, the danger is great that they will be cashed and the proceeds spent. Although in theory it is possible to compel the bankrupt through a turnover order to surrender or pay over to the estate all moneys collected by him after the institution of the proceedings, at times it is extremely difficult to enforce such a turnover order. No doubt the bankrupt is compelled to account for all properties that he failed to surrender and all moneys that he received after the institution of the proceedings, but the inability to comply with the turnover order would be a complete defense to any contempt citation that might be issued when he fails to obey the order of a court to turn over the money.

11A Collier on Bankruptcy § 5.002[4] (14th ed. 1978).

Some safeguards, however, are necessary to assure protection of a debtor’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment recites in material part: “The right of the people to be secure in their .. . papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated .... ” U.S. Const, amend. IV. First-class mail is within the scope of protection of this amendment. United States v. Van Leeuwen, 414 F.2d 758 (9th Cir.1969), rev’d on other grounds, 397 U.S. 249, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970).

In re Benny, 29 B.R. 754 (D.C.N.D.Cal. 1983) is currently the only reported decision involving the trustee’s rights under the Bankruptcy Code to redirect a debtor’s mail. The trustee in the Benny case effected a redirection of the debtor’s mail without either obtaining a court order or providing any notice to the debtor, who was under indictment for both mail fraud and racketeering during the pendency of his bankruptcy case. Though observing that the trustee in the Benny case “merely followed a practice which has been uniformly utilized by trustees for decades,” 4 the.court concluded that the trustee’s right to receive mail did not necessarily include a right to redirect both the business and personal mail of the debtor without notice to the debtor and an opportunity to interpose an objection. The court further recognized that the constitutional right of privacy circumscribes an “interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” 5 Other First and Fourth Amendment interests were also noted.

In discussing the scope of relief to which the debtor in Benny was entitled, the opinion recites:

[T]he trustee is currently making all mail available to Mr. Benny’s counsel in the criminal action, who returns the business mail to the trustee, an arrangement apparently reasonably satisfactory to all parties.
In the future, should the trustee, or any of his successors, determine that he must again gain control of the mail addressed to locations other than Red Rock [the debtor’s business address] in order to be able to fulfil his duties, he shall provide notice to Mr. Benny that he intends to implement such redirection. If Mr.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 B.R. 426, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 6277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norwood-v-crabtree-in-re-crabtree-tneb-1984.