Skip to main content

CONVERSION

Harris v. Viegelahn

Issues

Does a debtor who has paid part of his wages to a trust as part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy agreement recover the wages upon conversion to Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or do those wages belong to the creditors?

The Supreme Court will determine whether undistributed funds in a Chapter 13 trustee’s possession must be returned to the debtor upon conversion to Chapter 7, or whether creditors have a right to those funds. See Brief for Respondent, Mary K. Viegelahn, Chapter 13 Trustee at i. Harris argues that the Third Circuit’s rule is right in that a debtor’s post-petition wages become part of the property of the estate and thus revert back to the debtor upon conversion. See Brief for Petitioner, Charles E. Harris, III at 18–20. Viegelahn, however, counters that the Fifth Circuit’s rule is the correct one because funds belong to creditors, as the Bankruptcy Code creates an escrow relationship between the trustee and creditors. See Brief for Respondent at 19–21. The resolution of this case has the potential to affect the incentives a debtor has to file under Chapter 13, and may also implicate the balance of equitable considerations between debtor and creditor. See Brief of Amicus Curiae the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (“NACBA”), in support of Petitioner at 29; see Brief for Respondent at 28; Brief of NACBA at 25.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to repay their creditors by turning a portion of their monthly income over to a Chapter 13 trustee for distribution to those creditors. At any time, however, a debtor may convert a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case to one under Chapter 7. Congress has provided that "[e]xcept" where the conversion is made in bad faith, the resulting Chapter 7 estate is limited to the debtor's property "as of the date" the original Chapter 13 petition was filed; it does not include wages or property that the debtor acquired after the petition date. 11 U.S.C. § 348(f).

The question presented is:

When a debtor in good faith converts a bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, are undistributed funds held by the Chapter 13 trustee refunded to the debtor (as the Third Circuit held in In re Michael, 699 F.3d 305 (2012) [sic] or distributed to creditors (as the Fifth Circuit held below)?

In February of 2010, after falling $3,700 behind on his mortgage loan, Charles E. Harris III filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Harris, 757 F.3d 468, 471 (5th Cir.). His reorganization plan was confirmed in April of 2010.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts

Issues

Does the court have discretion to deny a debtor’s motion to convert a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing to another chapter if the debtor meets the technical requirements for the other chapter?

 

Robert Marrama sought to convert his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 13 after meeting the requirements for Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court denied Marrama’s motion to convert based on Marrama’s prior bad faith conduct in failing to report in his bankruptcy schedules the value of a tax refund and vacation home. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether courts have discretion to deny conversions based on an evaluation of the debtor’s conduct. The decision will hinge on the statutory language and legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code. While this issue may be limited to filings that occurred before Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, it will give the court the opportunity to clarify the scope of the good faith requirement in bankruptcy proceedings and the amount of discretion afforded to bankruptcy judges.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the right to convert a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to another chapter can be denied notwithstanding the plain language of the statute and the legislative history.

Robert Marrama entered the flooring business as a teenager and grew his family’s small enterprise into a multi-million dollar company. Sonia Nezamzadeh, Medill—On the Docket: Marrama, Robert v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, et al., posted on June 13, 2006.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to CONVERSION