IN RE VICKI TRAN
Filing
17
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION AND ORDER OF BANKRUPTCY COURT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/31/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
In re:
No. 10-03035 CW
9
VICKI TRAN,
ORDER AFFIRMING
DECISION AND
ORDER OF
BANKRUPTCY COURT
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Appellant.
/
11
12
13
Appellant Vicki Tran, debtor in the underlying Chapter 13
14
bankruptcy case, files a limited appeal of the bankruptcy court’s
15
June 25, 2010 ruling dismissing her case based on bad faith.
16
Appellee Martha G. Bronitsky, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee, argues
17
that the bankruptcy court’s Memorandum of Decision and Order of
18
Dismissal should be affirmed.
19
Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court
20
AFFIRMS the order of the bankruptcy court.
Appellant has filed a reply.1
21
BACKGROUND
22
On March 3, 2009, Appellant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
23
relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
24
District of California.
On June 2, 2009, Appellant received a
25
26
27
28
1
The Court's December 13, 2010 Order Establishing New Briefing
Schedule required Appellant to file her reply within fourteen days
after service of Appellee's brief. Appellant filed her reply
forty-four days after Appellee filed her brief. In the interests
of justice, the Court will consider the late-filed reply.
1
general discharge in that case.
2
filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief in the same bankruptcy
3
court.
4
On January 17, 2010, Appellant
Appellant's bankruptcy schedules show that, at the time she
5
filed her Chapter 13 petition, she had no general unsecured debts
6
and no priority debts.
7
valued at $434,000 which was subject to a first deed of trust in
8
favor of Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) securing a debt in the
9
amount of $459,991, and a second deed of trust in favor of WAMU
She owned a residence in Newark, California
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
securing a debt in the amount of $80,900.
11
petition, the first deed of trust was under-secured by $25,991 and
12
the second deed of trust was wholly unsecured.
13
owned another parcel of real property in San Jose, California that
14
was over-encumbered, and a motor vehicle valued at $13,000 subject
15
to a security interest that secured a debt in the amount of $6,000.
16
As of the date of the
Appellant also
On February 16, 2010, Appellant filed a Chapter 13 Plan and,
17
on June 8, 2010, she filed a First Amended Chapter 13 Plan.
18
Appellant listed the following creditors as holding secured claims:
19
WAMU for two delinquent payments on the first mortgage on her
20
residence, the Alameda County Tax Collector for delinquent property
21
taxes on her residence, and VW Credit for the $6,000 loan on her
22
vehicle.
23
payments of $375, which would cure the two delinquent payments on
24
the first deed of trust, cure the delinquent real property taxes
25
and pay the fees of the Chapter 13 Trustee and Appellant’s counsel.
26
No payments would be made to general unsecured creditors.
27
attachment to the plan, Appellant stated that she would file a
28
The plan proposed that Appellant would make sixty monthly
2
In an
1
motion to strip2 the second lien on her principal residence and re-
2
classify it as an unsecured non-priority claim.
3
such a motion and, on June 8, 2010, obtained an order valuing the
4
second lien as wholly unsecured.
5
6.
Appellant filed
Appellee’s Appendix (App.), Ex.
6
On April 7, 2010, the Chapter 13 Trustee objected to
7
Appellant’s plan on the ground that it was improper to strip a
8
wholly unsecured junior lien when Appellant was not eligible for a
9
discharge.3
Appellant filed an opposition and, on June 14, 2010,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s
11
objection to confirmation.
12
13
14
At the confirmation hearing, the following colloquy took place
between the bankruptcy court and Appellant’s attorney:
Court:
Apart from the lien-strip issue, is there any
purpose to this Chapter 13 other than just stripping
off the lien?
Atty:
The petition was filed to, at the time, stop–-the
Debtor also owned a condominium, and that was set
for Trustee’s sale. The Debtor has since decided
not to retain that property.
Court:
So, why are we here other than just to lien-strip?
Atty:
The primary focus is a lien strip, Your Honor.
is correct.
Court:
So isn’t this just subverting Chapter 7?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
That
I mean, in
22
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
As explained below, 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) allows a secured claim
to be "stripped" of its status as a secured claim to the extent
that the amount of the claim exceeds the value of the property to
which it attaches plus the amount of any senior liens.
3
Appellant conceded in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings
and in this appeal that, because she filed her Chapter 13 petition
less than four years after receiving her discharge in the prior
Chapter 7 case, she is not eligible for a discharge in her Chapter
13 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1).
3
1
Chapter 7, the Debtor couldn’t strip off the lien.
So, isn’t this just a disguised 7, the purpose of
which is to avoid the Dewsnup holding?
2
3
Atty:
That’s not my position, Your Honor.
Debtor –-
I mean, the
Court:
I know it’s not your position, but tell me why this
isn’t just a Chapter 7 case with a lien-strip
opportunity, from the Debtor’s standpoint.
Atty:
Well, Your Honor, the Debtor could have filed a
Chapter 13 and made a zero percent distribution to
unsecured creditors and had the same result.
Court:
No. I would–-I mean, if the only reason for a 13 is
to lien-strip off a lien, I’ve held that it’s not a
valid 13. I mean, unsecureds getting nothing, no
assets to save, just want to be in 13 to avoid
Dewsnup. All right.
Atty:
Okay.
Court:
All right.
Trustee:
No, Your Honor.
Atty:
No, Your Honor.
Court:
All right. I’ll take this under submission, but
probably the likely holding is to deny confirmation
of this plan.
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Anything else?
13
14
15
16
17
Transcript of June 14, 2010 Hearing (TR) at 5-6.
18
In the bankruptcy court’s June 25, 2010 Memorandum of
19
Decision, it overruled the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection, but
20
dismissed Appellant’s case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) on the
21
grounds that the case was filed in bad faith.
On the same date,
22
the bankruptcy court filed an order dismissing Appellant’s case.
23
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, objecting on the
24
following grounds to the dismissal of her case: (1) she was not
25
provided notice or an opportunity for a hearing on the issue of bad
26
faith because it was not the basis of the Chapter 13 Trustee’s
27
28
4
1
objection and was not before the bankruptcy court at the June 14,
2
2010 confirmation hearing; and (2) had a bad faith objection
3
properly been before the bankruptcy court, she would have presented
4
significant evidence establishing that she had filed her plan in
5
good faith and was entitled to strip an unsecured lien.
6
Chapter 13 Trustee filed a responsive brief in which she argues
7
that (1) the bankruptcy court had authority to dismiss the case for
8
bad faith even though there was no objection or motion addressing
9
that issue and (2) the bankruptcy court’s dismissal based on bad
The
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
faith should be affirmed because Appellant had no legitimate
11
Chapter 13 purpose.
12
bankruptcy court’s decision to overrule her objection that
13
Appellant cannot strip an unsecured junior lien because she is not
14
eligible for a discharge.
15
16
The Chapter 13 Trustee does not appeal the
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28
17
U.S.C. § 158(a).
18
conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact under the
19
clearly erroneous standard.
20
F.2d 533, 536 (9th Cir. 1988).
21
22
23
The district court reviews the bankruptcy court's
Fed. R. Bankr. 8013; In re Wagner, 839
DISCUSSION
I. Bankruptcy Court’s Sua Sponte Dismissal
At the June 14, 2010 hearing, the bankruptcy court indicated
24
that it was concerned that Appellant’s Chapter 13 case was “not
25
valid” because its purpose was solely to strip the junior lien.
26
See TR at 6.
27
about the bad faith of Appellant's case, she did not seek to
28
Despite this notice of the bankruptcy court’s concern
5
1
present any further evidence or argument on this issue.
2
Appellant received notice and had an opportunity to respond.
3
Therefore,
Furthermore, bankruptcy courts have an obligation, regardless
4
of whether there is an objection, to ensure that all requirements
5
of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a) are fulfilled before confirming a Chapter 13
6
plan.
7
1380-81 (2010) (failure to comply with Bankruptcy Code’s
8
requirement for Chapter 13 plan prevents confirmation, even if
9
creditor fails to object).
Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 130 S. Ct. 1367,
Also, under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
bankruptcy court is empowered sua sponte to issue any order or
11
judgment that is necessary to carry out the provisions of the
12
Bankruptcy Code, including dismissing a case.
13
B.R. 860, 869 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2004) (“Section 105(a) makes
14
‘crystal clear’ the court’s power to act sua sponte where no party
15
in interest or the United States trustee has filed a motion to
16
dismiss a bankruptcy case.”).
17
In re Tenant, 318
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court was empowered to dismiss
18
Appellant's case sua sponte for failure to comply with the
19
Bankruptcy Code.
20
II. Legitimate Chapter 13 Purpose
21
A. Good Faith Requirement
22
Chapter 13 was enacted to enable debtors to develop and
23
perform under a plan for the repayment of debts over a period of
24
time.
25
Developing a repayment plan under Chapter 13, as opposed to
26
liquidating all assets under Chapter 7, permits debtors to protect
27
their assets.
28
In re Warren, 89 B.R. 87, 92 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1988).
Id.
Chapter 13 provides a broader discharge than
6
1
does Chapter 7, premised upon the willingness of the debtor to
2
repay at least some portion of his or her debts.
3
Id.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and (7), a Chapter 13 plan may be
4
confirmed only if it has been proposed in good faith.
5
is a discrete and paramount test which must be passed before the
6
debtor’s plan may proceed to confirmation.
7
U.S.C. § 1307(c), the court may dismiss a case for “cause,” which
8
includes bad faith.
9
Bad faith is determined by the totality of the circumstances.
Good faith
Id. at 94.
Under 11
In re Eisen, 14 F.3d 469, 470 (9th Cir. 1994).
Id.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
This includes: (1) whether the debtor misrepresented facts in the
11
petition or plan, unfairly manipulated the Bankruptcy Code, or
12
otherwise filed the petition or plan in an inequitable manner;
13
(2) the debtor’s history of filings and dismissals; and
14
(3) egregious behavior.
15
Cir. 1999).
16
proposed payments and the amount of the debtor's surplus; (2) the
17
debtor's employment history, ability to earn, and likelihood of
18
future increases in income; (3) the probable duration of the plan;
19
(4) the extent of preferential treatment between classes of
20
creditors; (5) the type of debt to be discharged and whether such
21
debt is nondischargeable in Chapter 7; (6) special circumstances
22
such as inordinate medical expenses; (7) the extent to which
23
secured claims are modified; (8) the motivation and sincerity of
24
the debtor in seeking Chapter 13 relief; and (9) the burden the
25
plan's administration would place on the Chapter 13 trustee.
26
Warren, 89 B.R. at 93.
27
28
In re Leavitt, 171 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th
Other factors to consider are (1) the amount of the
Because Chapter 13 was enacted to provide an incentive for the
7
1
debtor to commit to a repayment plan as an alternative to
2
liquidation under Chapter 7, a court should not confirm a Chapter
3
13 plan that is, in essence, a veiled Chapter 7 case.
4
Nominal repayment is evidence that the debtor is unfairly
5
manipulating Chapter 13 and, thus, acting in bad faith.
6
Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir. 1982).
Id. at 95.
In re
7
B. Lien-Stripping
8
In bankruptcy, title 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) provides:
9
An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on
property in which the estate has an interest . . . is a
secured claim to the extent of the value of such
creditor’s interest . . . and is an unsecured claim to
the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest
. . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim . . .
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Thus, the claim’s status as secured and the amount of the
13
secured claim depends upon the value of the property to which the
14
lien attaches, and the amount of any senior liens.
If a lien does
15
not attach to any value, it is void by operation of 11 U.S.C.
16
§ 506(d) ("To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the
17
debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void").
18
However, in a Chapter 7 case, a debtor may not void all or any
19
portion of a lien on real property under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d), even
20
if it is partially or wholly unsecured.
Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S.
21
410, 417 (1992).
Dewsnup is inapplicable in Chapter 13 cases.
In
22
re Enewally, 368 F.3d 1165, 1170 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Zimmer, 313
23
F.3d 1220, 1227 (9th Cir. 2002).
Thus, a Chapter 13 debtor, but
24
not a Chapter 7 debtor, may utilize 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d) to
25
strip off a lien on the debtor’s residence, if the lien is
26
completely unsecured based on the value of the residence and the
27
28
8
1
amount of any senior lien.
2
C. Analysis
3
In its memorandum decision, the bankruptcy court noted that
4
Appellant did not have any tax debts or other pre-petition
5
unsecured priority claims to be paid, that her balance sheet showed
6
that she was solvent and that her monthly income was more than her
7
monthly expenses.
8
meaningful dividend to general unsecured creditors.
9
concluded that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Thus, Appellant’s plan did not return a
The court
the totality of the circumstances shows that Tran filed
this chapter 13 case solely for purposes of avoiding the
second deed of trust under circumstances where such
avoidance was not available in her chapter 7, and where
no independent reason exists for her subsequent chapter
13 filing. . . .
13
14
15
16
17
. . . [T]his case, as a chapter 13 case, is nothing other
than an attempt by Tran to unfairly manipulate the
Bankruptcy Code to skirt the Supreme Court’s holding in
Dewsnup, and thus, was not filed in good faith. It is
also clear that this case is of absolutely no benefit to
Tran’s remaining creditors. It follows that dismissal
pursuant to § 1307(a) is in order, and is the remedy that
would be in the best interest of Tran’s creditors and the
estate.
18
June 25, 2010 Decision at 14-15.
19
Appellant’s response is based primarily on the fact that some
20
of the good faith factors weigh in her favor.
For instance, she
21
points out that she has a good employment history, she has the
22
ability to make her Chapter 13 payments, the plan is expected to
23
last only thirty-six months, her financial statements are accurate,
24
there is no preferential treatment among different classes of
25
creditors, and she has only filed one previous bankruptcy petition.
26
Appellant also argues that she sought Chapter 13 relief in good
27
28
9
1
faith because the extensive arrearages on her residence could not
2
be cured through a loan modification, although she sought one.
3
Appellant concludes that “attempting to exercise her legal rights
4
to avail herself of the lien-stripping (even if this was the
5
primary purpose of the Chapter 13 case) does not in and of itself
6
authorize dismissal on bad faith grounds."
7
Appellant thus essentially concedes that the main reason she
8
filed her Chapter 13 petition was to strip the second deed of
9
trust.
The good faith factors she relies upon pale in light of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
fact that she had an improper reason for filing a Chapter 13 case,
11
and no proper reason.
12
were not presented to the bankruptcy court.
13
She proffers no evidence or argument that
Appellant filed a Chapter 7 case to discharge her general
14
unsecured debts.
15
Chapter 13 case to avoid a lien that could not, under Dewsnup, be
16
avoided in her Chapter 7 case.
17
no payments to unsecured creditors, because the only remaining
18
unsecured creditor is the holder of the lien she wishes to avoid.
19
Appellant wishes to partake of the benefits provided under both
20
Chapters 7 and 13 by first discharging all debts in Chapter 7 and
21
then discharging the one remaining unsecured debt in Chapter 13,
22
without providing any benefit to any unsecured creditors.
23
Contrary to Appellant's argument, she is not like other Chapter 13
24
debtors who properly may strip their undersecured liens because
25
they are receiving the benefit of the lien-stripping statute while
26
they are repaying their unsecured creditors.
27
at 92 (certain discharges available in Chapter 13 are not available
28
10
Six months after the discharge, she filed this
In her Chapter 13 plan, she offered
See Warren, 89 B.R.
1
in Chapter 7 as incentive for Chapter 13 debtors to perform under
2
Chapter 13 plan; congressional policy supporting Chapter 13 was to
3
enable individuals to develop and perform under a plan for
4
repayment of debts over an extended period).
5
Considering the totality of these circumstances, the Court
6
affirms the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Appellant’s Chapter
7
13 case is an attempt unfairly to manipulate the Bankruptcy Code to
8
evade the holding in Dewsnup and, thus, was not filed in good
9
faith.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirms the decision and
the order of the bankruptcy court.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated:8/31/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
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?