City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 926 F.3d 916 (7th Cir 2019)
Issue: Does the City of Chicago violate the automatic stay when it continues to “hold” a debtor’s vehicle after the filing of a chapter 13 petition?
According to the 7th Circuit, “In this consolidated appeal of four Chapter 13 bankruptcies, we consider whether the City of Chicago may ignore the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and continue to hold a debtor’s vehicle until the debtor pays her outstanding parking tickets.” A previous 7th Circuit case called Thompson required turnover on these same basic facts and the 7th Circuit refused to overturn it. The Thompson case ruled that holding onto an asset is exercising control which is an “act” which violates the stay. It held that turnover is compulsory “under a plain reading of §§ 363(e) and 542(a) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Whiting Pools.” 363(e) requires the court to “prohibit or condition such use . . . [of property of the estate] as is necessary to provide adequate protection of such interest” (meaning turnover is required?). 542(a) says “a creditor in possession of property of the estate ‘shall deliver [it] to the trustee.'”
The City argued that it needed to retain possession “to prevent the loss or destruction of the vehicles” but it apparently offered no evidence that giving the vehicle back would result in loss or destruction. Further it could and should “seek protection on an expedited basis” under 363(e). The City argued that it had a lien perfected by possession and that § 362(b)(3) excepted it from compliance, i.e., the stay does not apply to acts “to continue the perfection of” its lien. The court responded that there are other ways to perfect liens and in any event, “the City’s possessory lien is not destroyed by its involuntary loss of possession due to forced compliance with the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.” The City also argued that this is an act to enforce its “police or regulatory power.” The court chided the City saying this is “an exercise of “revenue collection” rather than police power.
The court concluded, “the City needs to satisfy the debts owed to it through the bankruptcy process, as do all other creditors.”
Note: The court says that this ruling is in line with the 9th Circuit in California Employment Development Department v. Taxel 98 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1996).
The City argued to the Supreme Court that this ruling ignores its ruling in Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 516 U.S. 16 (1995)(bank may put a “temporary” administrative freeze on the debtor’s bank account upon learning of the bankruptcy filing without violating the automatic stay under Section 362(a)). But this case is not discussed anywhere in the 7th Circuit opinion.
I have agreed to represent a debtor – pro bono – who has been sued to have the debt declared non-dischargeable. The guy was in an altercation and was arrested. The “victim’s” finger was broken. My guy has his side of the story. The “victim” has demanded $5 million.
Anyway I took the case as part of the UWLA Bankruptcy Litigation Clinic. This is a great case for a student or new atty to get involved in. You will work side by side with me. You will be “second chair” at trial. The legal issues are not complex but it will likely go to trial downtown – several months from now. In the meantime there will be discovery, depositions etc. If you have taken a bankruptcy course, but are not yet an attorney, you can be certified by the bankruptcy court and actually argue some portion of the case.
If you are interested send me an email at email@example.com.
You must be prepared to spend a few hours a week on the case for the next several months. There will likely be weeks of no work. This will go to trial. Let me know.
Take a look at this case if you get a chance. The US Trustee wanted it dismissed alleging abuse.
We will discuss this in class on Friday. Take a look. It’s 60 pages so bring it on your laptop – or you can print it out if you want. Judge Tighe Tentatives
This coming Friday is Class 10. We will discuss preferences and fraudulent conveyances. The cases are pretty short.
Class 10 – March 15, 2019
Cunningham v. Brown 281
Fraudulent Conveyances 286
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation 287
Dean v. Davis, Jr. 292
In re Beverly 294
Shapiro v. Wilgus 304
Bailey v. Glover 306
In 2011, Judge Donovan ruled on a Motion to Dismiss in a chapter 13 case filed jointly by two men. Federal law – Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA) – decreed that if federal law said “spouses,” that meant a man and a woman. Judge Donovan ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional and refused to dismiss the case. You should read his written opinion, it is very poignant. We can discuss this with him tomorrow. My brief follows.
In re Balas and Morales, 449 B.R. 567 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2011) (Donovan, J.)
Issue: Are two men, properly married under the laws of California, eligible to file a joint bankruptcy case?
Holding: Yes. Note: Nineteen Central District judges concurred and signed this opinion.
Counsel for the debtors: Peter Lively and Rob Pfister.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge: Hon. Thomas Donovan
The debtors, two men, filed a joint chapter 13 petition. They were married “to each other” under California law in 2008 “and remain married today.” The US Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss for “cause.” It cited the Defense of Marriage Act, “DOMA,” 1 U.S.C. section 7, which “defines the term ‘spouse’ for the purpose of applying federal law, as ‘a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’”
Judge Donovan wrote: “The issue presented to this court is whether the Debtors, who are legally married and were living in California at the time of the filing of their joint petition, are eligible to file a ‘joint petition’ as defined by § 302(a).” “In this court’s judgment, no legally married couple should be entitled to fewer bankruptcy rights than any other legally married couple.” Continue reading
We will have our final class this Friday. I am going to skip the section on chapter 13 so you do not need to read the cases previously assigned.
Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Donovan (Ret.) is going to come by and visit. Judge Donovan was the trial judge in the Beverly case so we can discuss that with him. Remember he ruled in favor of the debtor but was reversed by the court of appeals.
Judge Donovan also argued (as a young lawyer) a case (on behalf of the trustee!) at the Supreme Court in 1966 called Bank of Marin v. England. I would like you to read the opinion in that case which is here. Especially the dissent by Justice Harlan which agreed with Judge Donovan.
Judge Donovan was recently overruled by the Supreme Court in Law v. Siegel. The opinion in that case is here. It deals with taking away a homestead exemption based on the debtor being a really bad guy.
Finally, Judge Donovan recently ruled on a case involving Section 727, whether the discharge should be denied. We can talk to him about that. My brief is below. Continue reading
It looks like tomorrow, April 6, is our 12th class. So four more left including tomorrow. Here is what we will do for the last four weeks:
April 6: Class 12. Trustee’s Ability to Expand the Estate 292
A. Preferences 292
Cunningham v. Brown 292
B. Fraudulent Conveyances 297
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation 298
Dean v. Davis, Jr. 303
In re Beverly 305
Shapiro v. Wilgus 315
April 13: Class 13. The Discharge 320
A. Denial of the Discharge Based on Prepetition Transfers 320
In re Adeeb 321
In re Beverly 327
B. Non-Dischargeability Based on Fraud 329
Overview of 523(a): 19 subsections
When is a complaint required?
In Re Ronald Kirsh 329
C. Credit Card Debts 334
In re Dorsey 334
In re Eashai 339
April 20: Class 14: Prof. Gorginian
C. Non-Dischargeability Based on Willful and Malicious Injury 347
Kawaauhau v. Geiger 347
D. Debts Arising From Criminal Proceedings 350
Kelly v. Robinson 350
E. Student Loans 356
In re Carnduff 358
Roth v. Educational Management Corp (In re Roth) 364
April 27: Class 15. Consumer Reorganization – Chapter 13 374
Overview of chapter 13
A. Computing Net Disposable Income 374
In re Greer 374
C. Good Faith After BAPCPA 392
In re Welsh 392
From the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center
Booting Car Not a Stay Violation
Posted by NCBRC – March 21, 2018
The City’s action in booting the debtor’s car after she had filed her bankruptcy petition did not violate the automatic stay where its purpose was to protect public safety. In re Hicks, No. 17-3663 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2018).
Ashina Hicks entered chapter 13 bankruptcy with almost $16,000 in traffic fines owed to the City of Chicago. After her petition, the City booted her car and did not remove the boot until the following day. Ms. Hicks filed a motion to show cause why the City’s action should not be found to be a violation of the automatic stay, and she sought $6,000 in damages for emotional distress, inconvenience and embarrassment. The City countered that its action was within its governmental power to protect the public safety and was not subject to the automatic stay under section 362(b)(4). The court agreed.
The full article is here.