Wickham v. United American Bank (In Re Property Leasing & Management, Inc.)

46 B.R. 903, 12 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 410, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6575
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedMarch 7, 1985
DocketBankruptcy No. 3-82-01397, Adv. No. 3-82-1025
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 46 B.R. 903 (Wickham v. United American Bank (In Re Property Leasing & Management, Inc.)) 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
Wickham v. United American Bank (In Re Property Leasing & Management, Inc.), 46 B.R. 903, 12 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 410, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6575 (Tenn. 1985).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

CLIVE W. BARE, Bankruptcy Judge.

At issue is whether certain repayments by the debtor of its indebtedness on two loans constitute avoidable preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C.A. § 547 (1979).

Also at issue is whether a bank attempting to assert its right of setoff with respect to funds in the debtor-depositor’s checking account may be charged with knowledge of the trust character of the funds so as to preclude the bank’s right of setoff of the funds against the debtor-depositor’s own indebtedness to the bank. 11 U.S.C.A. § 553 (1979).

On September 17, 1982, Property Leasing and Management, Inc. (PLM) filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On November 2, 1982, PLM commenced this adversary proceeding against the United American Bank in Knoxville (UABK) to recover certain alleged preferential transfers and to determine UABK’s setoff rights regarding a bank account maintained by PLM at UABK. On December 16, 1982, the bankruptcy case was converted to a proceeding under chapter 7. UABK subsequently failed on February 14, 1983. Consequently, PLM’s trustee in bankruptcy amended the complaint to add as defendants UABK’s successors in interest, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and First Tennessee Bank. On August 22, 1984, this court dismissed FDIC in its corporate capacity and First Tennessee Bank as defendants in the preference action. FDIC in its receivership capacity remains a defendant with respect to the action to recover preferences while First Tennessee Bank remains as a counterclaimant with respect to the question regarding the right of setoff.

The preference action concerns payments made by PLM on a $600,000.00 loan debt and on a $1,180,000.00 loan debt. The set-off question concerns the right of First Tennessee, as UABK’s successor in interest, to apply funds in a PLM checking account against the $146,074.42 balance of principal and interest due on the $1,180,-000.00 loan.

For convenience and clarity the court will summarize separately the findings of fact relevant to each of these three transactions.

I

THE SETOFF QUESTION

During 1982 PLM maintained a bank account at UABK bearing the account number 03-6268-5. PLM described the account in its Statement of Financial Affairs as an “operating account.” PLM was in the business of acting as rental agent for private homeowners and owners of local campgrounds in the rental of temporary accommodations to visitors to the 1982 World’s Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee. PLM entered into written management agreements with the various property owners it represented. PLM’s compensation for its services consisted of a percentage of the rental funds collected on behalf of the property owners. The agreements varied in form, specifically regarding PLM’s duties respecting funds collected on behalf of the property owners. However, a number of property owners had management agreements with PLM containing the provisions set forth in paragraph 5 of Ex. 4-M:

5. All monies furnished by Owner as working funds and all monies received by Agent for or on behalf of Owner shall be deposited by Agent in a commercial bank and shall not be comingled [sic] with the funds of Agent. Such funds shall be disbursed by Agent in such amounts and at such times as the same are required to pay for obligations, liabilities, costs, expenses and fees (including, without limitation, the compensation of Agent as hereinafter provided) arising on account of or in connection with this Agreement. All amounts remaining after the payment of expenses and fees, shall be paid over to Owner monthly. Owner shall *907 reimburse Agent promptly for any monies which Agent may elect to advance for the account of Owner. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to obligate Agent to make any such advances.

As indicated, PLM booked reservations for individuals intending to visit the World’s Fair. PLM required a reservation deposit, with the balance payable at a later date. In the event of timely cancellation, the maker of the reservation was entitled to a refund of the deposit.

Contrary to the management agreement provision quoted above, PLM did not segregate the reservations deposits or other funds collected on behalf of the property owners. Instead, it commingled such funds in account 03-6268-5 along with funds from various other sources, including, for example, fees for inspection of property of owners wishing to participate in the rental program, loan proceeds, interest income, proceeds from the sale of World’s Fair tickets, etc. PLM paid its general operating expense (including, for example, postage, telephone services, attorney fees, temporary help, various taxes, furniture rental, cleaning expenses, rent office supplies, etc.) with checks drawn on account 03-6268-5. PLM also withdrew funds from the account, invested them in certificates of deposit, and subsequently redeposited principal and interest in the account.

After the commencement of PLM’s bankruptcy case, UABK attempted on or about September 20, 1982, to set off funds in account 03-6268-5 against a $146,074.42 debt owed by PLM to UABK. Upon learning of the bankruptcy case, UABK reversed the setoff entries and, pursuant to court order, deposited the funds in question ($146,074.42) in an escrow account pending a determination by this court of UABK’s right of setoff.

The parties have stipulated that the property owners listed on pages 1-3 of Ex. 4-K all had the same Management Agreement with PLM. This agreement specifically provided (1) that funds received by PLM on behalf of the owners would be deposited and not commingled with PLM’s funds, (2) that such funds would be disbursed by PLM as required to pay for “obligations, liabilities, costs, expenses and fees” arising in connection with the Agreement, and (3) that the balance remaining would be paid over monthly to the owners. Other property owners besides those listed on Ex. 4-K also had contracts with these same provisions.

In Country-Uptown Motel v. PLM/Hotel-Motel Division, 35 B.R. 499 (Bankr.E.D. Tenn.1983) this court held that no express trust was created by a reservation agreement which failed to require the segregation of funds collected or to explicitly restrict the debtor from using the funds for purposes unrelated to the agreement. This court specifically noted that the debtor “was not restricted by the terms of the agreement from commingling funds.” 35 B.R. at 502. Here, in critical contrast, the agreement contains an express prohibition against the commingling of funds.

Furthermore, PLM was required only to transmit funds actually received. Cf. In re Shulman Transport Enterprises, 744 F.2d 293, C.C.H. ¶ 70, 138 (2nd Cir.1984) (provision requiring debtor freight forwarder to regularly pay carrier for freight transport services, whether or not debtor had collected for services from shipper, deemed indicative of debtor-creditor relationship, rather than fiduciary agency relationship, between debtor and carrier); In re Morales Travel Agency, 667 F.2d 1069

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

Related

Gladstone v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Vassau)
499 B.R. 864 (S.D. California, 2013)
In Re Tomasevic
273 B.R. 682 (M.D. Florida, 2002)
Marlow v. Rollins Cotton Co. (In Re Julien Co.)
127 B.R. 604 (W.D. Tennessee, 1991)
United States v. Johnny Elias-Rivera
848 F.2d 16 (First Circuit, 1988)
Aguillard v. Bank of Lafayette (In Re Bourgeois)
58 B.R. 657 (W.D. Louisiana, 1986)
In Re Mendenhall
54 B.R. 44 (W.D. Arkansas, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 B.R. 903, 12 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 410, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wickham-v-united-american-bank-in-re-property-leasing-management-inc-tneb-1985.