Silverman v. Leucadia, Inc. (In Re Silverman)

37 B.R. 200, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15759
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 28, 1982
DocketBankruptcy No. 77 B 2988, No. 81 Civ. 4539 (RWS)
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 37 B.R. 200 (Silverman v. Leucadia, Inc. (In Re Silverman)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Silverman v. Leucadia, Inc. (In Re Silverman), 37 B.R. 200, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15759 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

The appellant Isaac Silverman (“the bankrupt”) has appealed from an order of the Honorable Howard Schwartzberg entered April 24, 1981, 10 B.R. 734, denying him standing to object to a claim filed by Leucadia, Inc. (“Leucadia”) and overruling his objections to the claim on the merits. Because I agree with Judge Schwartzberg’s opinion on standing and on the merits of the bankrupt’s claim, I affirm.

Leucadia filed a general claim of $18,533,-310.43 and an administrative claim of $404,-373.30. The mortgage debts out of which these claims arose are described in Judge Schwartzberg’s opinion as well as the circumstances under which the trustee of the bankrupt estate released all its claims against Leucadia and waived all defenses to Leucadia’s claims.

Because of the appointment of the trustee and the effect of the release, the bankrupt possesses standing to oppose Leuca-dia’s claim only if it can be demonstrated that the disallowance of the claim would produce a surplus in the estate which would be available to the bankrupt. To date the bankrupt has not done so.

Of course, the trustee may not oppose Leucadia’s claim without violating this release and therefore the entire claim stands unopposed unless the bankrupt cah establish that the claim has been extinguished. However, even granting that such a possibility might exist, the bankrupt has failed to demonstrate on this record the existence of a surplus.

For the reasons set forth by Judge Schwartzberg, I conclude that Leucadia has exhausted all of its secured interests in the bankrupt’s properties and cannot be deprived of its rights as determined by the Supreme Courts of New York and West-chester counties. Judge Schwartzberg correctly rejected the bankrupt’s contention that as a matter of law Leucadia by its foreclosure actions had waived its secured position with respect to the Westchester property. The reasoning applies equally to the New York and Westchester proceedings.

Even if the bankrupt’s contention is accepted to the effect that the foreclosure judgments obtained to date have extinguished the mortgage debts pursuant to New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1371(3) to the extent of the $8,974,801.05 and $2,537,995.78 judgments already obtained, there remains the $7.3 million claim relating to the Chase mortgage now in the process of foreclosure, as to which a deficiency judgment is being sought.

Further, even if all the Leucadia claims except for the administrative claim are assumed to have been extinguished, the bankrupt has not established on the record here that a surplus will in fact exist. Indeed the record indicates to the contrary.

The order below is affirmed.

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

Related

In re Haggerty
542 B.R. 849 (N.D. Indiana, 2015)
Santos v. Mender (In Re Santos)
349 B.R. 762 (First Circuit, 2006)
In Re Walker
356 B.R. 834 (S.D. Florida, 2006)
In Re: Neil O'Donnel v.
Sixth Circuit, 2005
In Re Choquette
290 B.R. 183 (D. Massachusetts, 2003)
Kunimoto v. Fidell
26 F. App'x 630 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Jones
260 B.R. 415 (E.D. Michigan, 2000)
In Re Vebeliunas
231 B.R. 181 (S.D. New York, 1999)
In Re Manshul Construction Corp.
223 B.R. 428 (S.D. New York, 1998)
New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer
708 A.2d 1378 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
In Re I & F Corp.
219 B.R. 483 (S.D. Ohio, 1998)
Caserta v. Tobin
175 B.R. 773 (S.D. Florida, 1994)
United States v. Fingers (In Re Fingers)
170 B.R. 419 (S.D. California, 1994)
Gribben v. United States (In Re Gribben)
158 B.R. 920 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Gore v. Kressner (In Re Kressner)
159 B.R. 428 (S.D. New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 B.R. 200, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-leucadia-inc-in-re-silverman-nysd-1982.