Rickey Carroll v. John Logan
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 09-01177-8-JRL. [999227376]. [13-1024]
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 10
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1024
RICKEY DEAN CARROLL; CHERI CARROLL,
Debtors-Appellants,
v.
JOHN FLETCHER LOGAN,
Trustee – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilson. J. Rich Leonard, United
States Bankruptcy Judge. (09-01177-8-JRL)
Argued:
September 17, 2013
Decided:
October 28, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Floyd joined.
ARGUED: Cortney I. Walker, SASSER LAW FIRM, Cary, North
Carolina, for Appellants.
John Fletcher Logan, OFFICE OF THE
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
ON
BRIEF: Travis Sasser, SASSER LAW FIRM, Cary, North Carolina, for
Appellants.
Michael Brandon Burnett, OFFICE OF THE CHAPTER 13
TRUSTEE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 10
WYNN, Circuit Judge:
This
appeal
concerns
whether
Bankruptcy
Code
Section
1306(a) extends the 180-day time limit under Bankruptcy Code
Section 541 for identifying property that may be included in a
bankruptcy estate.
Appellants Rickey Dean Carroll and Cheri
Carroll argue that the bankruptcy court erred by including an
inheritance that postdated their Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition
by
more
Because
than
180
Section
days
1306(a)
as
part
plainly
of
their
extends
bankruptcy
the
estate.
timeline
for
including “the kind” of property “specified in” Section 541 in
Chapter 13 bankruptcy estates, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s
inclusion
of
the
inheritance
in
the
Carrolls’
Chapter
13
bankruptcy estate.
I.
In February 2009, the Carrolls filed a joint petition for
relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Under that
reorganization chapter, debtors with regular income pay back a
portion of their debts through a repayment plan.
The Carrolls’
repayment plan, approved in August 2009, required them to pay
$2,416 for 6 months followed by $2,480 for 54 months.
In August 2012, over three years after filing their Chapter
13 petition, the Carrolls notified the bankruptcy court that Mr.
2
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Carroll’s
Filed: 10/28/2013
mother
had
died
consequence,
Mr.
approximately
$100,000.
inherited
Carroll
interest
in
Pg: 3 of 10
December
2011
anticipated
an
Because
before
their
Mr.
and
inheritance
Carroll
bankruptcy
that,
acquired
case
was
as
a
of
the
closed,
dismissed, or converted to a proceeding under another bankruptcy
code
chapter,
Carrolls’
the
Chapter
repayment
plan
13
trustee
include
to
moved
“an
to
modify
amount
of
the
the
Inheritance, if and when received, sufficient to pay in full all
of the allowed general unsecured claims . . . .”
Over
the
Carrolls’
objection,
the
J.A. 76.
bankruptcy
court
held
that Mr. Carroll’s inheritance was property of the bankruptcy
estate.
(Bankr.
In re Carroll, 09-01177-8-JRL, 2012 WL 5512356, at *1
E.D.N.C.
Nov.
14,
2012).
The
bankruptcy
court
thus
ordered that the inheritance be included in the Carrolls’ plan
to pay unsecured creditors, who, under the original repayment
plan, were expected to receive payment on 3.8% of their allowed
claims.
Id. at *2.
The Carrolls noticed their appeal, and the
bankruptcy court stayed its order and certified a direct appeal
to this Court.
II.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court
properly included Mr. Carroll’s inheritance, which postdated the
3
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Carrolls’
Filed: 10/28/2013
bankruptcy
bankruptcy estate.
petition
Pg: 4 of 10
by
more
than
180
days,
in
We review this issue of law de novo.
the
In re
Maharaj, 681 F.3d 558, 568 (4th Cir. 2012).
The interplay of Bankruptcy Code Sections 541 and 1306 is
at the heart of this dispute.
statutes’ plain language.
We begin our analysis with the
“In arriving at the plain meaning, we
. . . assume that the legislature used words that meant what it
intended; that all words had a purpose and were meant to be read
consistently; and that the statute’s true meaning provides a
rational response to the relevant situation.”
Salomon Forex,
Inc. v. Tauber, 8 F.3d 966, 975 (4th Cir. 1993).
Bankruptcy
Code
Section
541
identifies
included in bankruptcy estates generally.
statute,
which
is
not
specific
to
the
property
11 U.S.C. § 541.
any
particular
type
The
of
bankruptcy proceeding, includes in estates:
5) Any interest in property that would have been
property of the estate if such interest had been an
interest of the debtor on the date of the filing of
the petition, and that the debtor acquires or becomes
entitled to acquire within 180
days after such date-(A) by bequest, devise, or inheritance[.]
11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5) (emphasis added).
Section
1306(a)
then
expands
the
definition
of
estate
property for Chapter 13 cases specifically, stating:
(a) Property of the estate includes, in addition to
the property specified in section 541 of [the Code]--
4
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 5 of 10
(1) all property of the kind specified in such section
that the debtor acquires after the commencement of the
case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or
converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of [the
Code], whichever occurs first; and
11 U.S.C. § 1306(a) (emphasis added).
Congress has harmonized these two statutes for us.
Section
541,
Congress
bankruptcy estates.
established
a
general
With
definition
for
With Section 1306, it then expanded on that
definition specifically for purposes of Chapter 13 cases.
Thus,
“Section 1306 broadens the definition of property of the estate
for chapter 13 purposes to include all property acquired and all
earnings
from
commencement
of
services
the
performed
case.”
S.
by
the
debtor
after
Rep.
No.
95-989,
at
the
140-41
(1978).
The statutes’ plain language manifests Congress’s intent to
expand
the
estate
for
Chapter
13
purposes
by
capturing
the
types, or “kind,” of property described in Section 541 (such as
bequests,
devises,
and
temporal restriction.
inheritances),
but
11 U.S.C. § 1306(a).
not
the
180–day
This is because
“[t]he kind of property is a distinct concept from the time at
which the debtor’s interest in the property was acquired.”
In
re Tinney, 07-42020-JJR13, 2012 WL 2742457, at *2 (Bankr. N.D.
Ala.
July
9,
2012).
And
on
its
face,
Section
1306(a)
incorporates only the kind of property described in Section 541
into its expanded temporal framework.
5
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 6 of 10
In essence, Section 1306 is a straightforward formula for
calculating Chapter 13 estates:
A Chapter 13
Bankruptcy
=
Estate
=
Property
described
in Section 541
+
The kind of property
(e.g., inheritances)
described in Section
541 and acquired
before the Chapter
13 case is closed,
dismissed, or
converted
See 11 U.S.C. 1306(a).
Section
1306’s
extension
of
a
Chapter
13
bankruptcy
estate’s reach until the Chapter 13 case is closed, dismissed,
or converted constitutes “a rational response to the relevant
situation.”
proceedings
Salomon
provide
Forex,
debtors
8
with
F.3d
at
975.
significant
Chapter
benefits:
13
For
example, debtors may retain encumbered assets and have their
defaults cured, while secured creditors have long-term payment
plans
imposed
upon
them
and
unsecured
creditors
payment on only a fraction of their claims.
§§
may
receive
See 11 U.S.C.
1322, 1325. 1
1
By contrast, in Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings, a
debtor’s estate is largely subject to liquidation.
Generally,
the estate is “identified with a snapshot taken of the debtor’s
property when his petition for relief is filed.” In re Tinney,
2012 WL 2742457, at *2. And the secured creditors are soon free
to foreclose on mortgages and repossess encumbered cars and
other property.
Id.
In turn, the debtor is not subject to
multi-year repayment obligations.
6
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 7 of 10
In exchange for those benefits, a Chapter 13 debtor makes a
multi-year
commitment
confirmed plan.
Id.
to
repay
obligations
under
a
court-
The repayment plan remains subject to
modification for reasons including a debtor’s decreased ability
to pay according to plan, as well as the debtor’s increased
ability to pay.
before,
“[w]hen
See 11 U.S.C. §
a
[Chapter
13]
1329.
debtor’s
As we have stated
financial
fortunes
improve, the creditors should share some of the wealth.”
In re
Arnold, 869 F.2d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 1989). 2
The overwhelming majority of courts to have addressed this
issue “agree that § 1306 modifies the § 541 time period in
Chapter 13 cases.”
(B.A.P.
10th
Cir.
Tinney,
2012
WL
In re Vannordstrand, 356 B.R. 788, at *2
2007)
(collecting
2742457,
at
*1
cases);
(noting
see
that
also
“[t]he
In
re
large
majority of courts to address the issue agree” and collecting
cases).
Several
factly.
See, e.g.,
treatises
state
the
proposition
matter-of-
Hon. Joan N. Feeney, Bankruptcy Law Manual
2
In In re Arnold, we did not address Sections 541 and 1306.
Nevertheless, we had to decide whether a $120,000 increase in
the debtor’s annual income warranted modification of his Chapter
13 repayment plan.
We held that the bankruptcy court did not
abuse its discretion by increasing the debtor’s plan payments to
account for his substantially increased income. “It is grossly
unfair for a debtor, who experiences an increase in yearly
income of $120,000, to refuse to share some of that with
creditors who are getting no more than 20 cents on the dollar
for their claims under the original Chapter 13 plan.”
In re
Arnold, 869 F.2d at 243.
7
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 8 of 10
§ 13:13 (5th ed. 2013) (“Significantly, property of the estate
in Chapter 13 cases is a broader concept as it includes property
also described in § 1306, which supplements § 541’s definition
of property of the estate of Chapter 13 debtors.”); 8A Corpus
Juris
Secundum
Bankruptcy
§
561
(2013)
(“In
a
Chapter
13
individual debt adjudgment case, the estate includes property of
the kind generally included in estates, notwithstanding the fact
that
such
property
commencement
of
is
the
acquired
case
but
by
the
before
debtor
the
case
after
is
the
closed,
dismissed, or converted to a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12 . .
. .”).
“adds
And even this Court has indicated that Section 1306(a)
certain
property
Chapter 13 context.”
The
Carrolls
to
a
§
541
bankruptcy
estate
in
the
In re Maharaj, 681 F.3d at 564. 3
nevertheless
contend
that
Mr.
Carroll’s
inheritance should be excluded from their Chapter 13 bankruptcy
estate
under
principle
two
that
principles
courts
“must
of
statutory
give
effect
interpretation:
to
every
word
the
of
a
statute,” and the principle that “specific language in a statute
governs general language.”
Appellants’ Br. at 8-9.
We are
convinced by neither argument.
3
We recognize that a couple of courts have taken a contrary
view. See In re Key, 465 B.R. 709, 712 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2012);
In re Walsh, 07-60774, 2011 WL 2621018, at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Ga.
June 15, 2011); and In re Schlottman, 319 B.R. 23, 24-25 (Bankr.
M.D. Fla. 2004).
However, we find those outlier cases
unconvincing.
8
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 9 of 10
Unquestionably, we agree that courts should give effect to
every word of a statute whenever possible.
624 F.3d 670, 677 (4th Cir. 2010).
us
to
reject
the
Carrolls’
Broughman v. Carver,
And doing so here requires
argument.
For
if
Section
541’s
180-day rule restricts what is included in a Chapter 13 estate,
then Section 1306(a), which expands the temporal restriction for
Chapter 13 purposes, loses all meaning.
By contrast, neither
statute is rendered superfluous, and both are given effect, if
Section 1306(a)’s extended timing applies to Chapter 13 estates
and supplements Section 541 with property acquired before the
Chapter 13 case is closed, dismissed, or converted.
Further, while we know well the “canon of construction that
‘the specific governs the general,’” Broughman, 624 F.3d at 676,
applying that canon here does not further the Carrolls’ cause.
In particular, we reject the Carrolls’ contention that Section
541(a)(5) is “specific” while Section 1306(a) is “general.”
On
the
13
contrary,
Section
1306(a)
is
specific
to
Chapter
bankruptcies and defines estates solely for purposes of that
reorganization chapter.
Section 541, by contrast, is a general
provision that provides generic contours for bankruptcy estates.
Thus, even under the two statutory interpretation principles the
Carrolls
press,
the
bankruptcy
court
properly
included
inherited property in the Carrolls’ bankruptcy estate.
9
the
Appeal: 13-1024
Doc: 21
Filed: 10/28/2013
Pg: 10 of 10
III.
The Supreme Court has eschewed interpreting the Bankruptcy
Code such that it “would deny creditors payments that the debtor
could easily make.”
(2010).
The
plain
Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464, 2476
language
of
Section
1306(a)
blocks
the
Carrolls from depriving their creditors a part of their windfall
acquired before their Chapter 13 case was closed, dismissed, or
converted.
Accordingly,
the
bankruptcy
court
correctly
held
that Mr. Carroll’s inheritance was property of the bankruptcy
estate under Section 1306(a).
AFFIRMED
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?