Schwartzer v. Cleveland et al

Filing 14

ORDER that the Exemption Order of the Bankruptcy Court filed January 3, 2014, is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: cc USBC - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

In re
CHARLES CLEVELAND and ELLERIE
CLEVELAND,
Debtor.

6
7

LENARD E. SCHWARTZER, TRUSTEE,

8

Appellant,
vs.

9
10
11

CHARLES CLEVELAND and ELLERIE
CLEVELAND,
Appellees.

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00068-GMN
Bankruptcy Case No. BK-S-13-11315-LED
ORDER

13
14

Pending before the Court is Appellant Lenard Schwartzer’s Appeal from the Bankruptcy

15

Court’s January 3, 2014, Exemption Order in Bankruptcy Case No. 13-11315-LED. Appellant

16

filed an Opening Brief (ECF No. 7). Appellees Charles and Ellerie Cleveland filed an

17

Answering Brief (ECF No. 11), and Appellant filed a Reply Brief (ECF No. 13).

18

I.

19

BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2013, Appellees Charles and Ellerie Cleveland (“Appellees”) filed for

20

relief under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

21

(Opening Brief 9:21–24, ECF No. 7). Appellant Lenard Schwartzer (“Appellant”) was

22

appointed as the Chapter 7 Trustee to administer the bankruptcy estate. (Id.). In their

23

schedules, Appellees disclosed their 100% ownership interest in PFG Advisors, LLC and PFG

24

Properties, LLC—both Nevada limited liability companies. (Schedule B, Dkt. 27, ER 7, ECF

25

No. 7–1). PFG Advisors, LLC is Appellees’ insurance agency business, and PFG Properties,

Page 1 of 5

1

LLC is “an entity formed to own an office building which had ultimately been foreclosed upon

2

in 2012.” (Answering Brief 9:19–23, ECF No. 11).

3

After Appellees filed their original and amended schedules, Appellant timely filed an

4

Objection to Debtors’ Claim of Exemptions (“Objection”). (Dkt. 65, ER 38–41). Appellees

5

filed an Opposition (Dkt. 72, ER 44–63), and Appellant filed a Reply (Dkt. 77, ER 74–77).

6

After the Objection was fully briefed, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on October 25,

7

2013. (See Transcript of Hearing on October 25, 2013, Dkt. 106, ER 130–77). At that hearing,

8

the Bankruptcy Court requested supplemental briefing by Appellees. (ER 172:10–12).

9

Appellees filed their supplemental briefing on November 20, 2013 (Dkt. 83, ER 78–99), and

10

the Bankruptcy Court held another hearing on November 26, 2013 (See Transcript of Hearing

11

on November 26, 2013, Dkt. 107, ER 178–88). At that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court directed

12

the parties to file an order incorporating the Bankruptcy Court’s findings and conclusions of

13

law regarding Appellant’s Objection. (ER 183:20–21). On January 3, 2014, an Order Denying

14

Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s Claim of Exemptions (“Exemption Order”) was filed. (Dkt. 86,

15

ER 104–06). The Exemption Order held:

16

1. All of the Trustee’s objections to the Debtors’ claims of
exemptions are denied except that as to the claim of exemptions
for Debtors’ interests in various liability companies (including
limited liability companies which the Debtors own 100% of the
membership and are managers), the Court finds that although
those interests are otherwise property of the bankruptcy estate the
Trustee has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any
assets of those companies;

17
18
19
20
21

(ER 104:20–25). Shortly thereafter, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 1).

22

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

23

The Court reviews de novo the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of state exemption

24

laws, as well as its interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code. See Hopkins v. Cerchione (In re

25

Cerchione), 414 B.R. 540, 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009). The Court reviews the Bankruptcy

Page 2 of 5

1

Court's factual findings for clear error. In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 900 (9th Cir. 2005); Fed. R.

2

Bankr. P. 8013. The Bankruptcy Court's factual findings are clearly erroneous only if the

3

findings “leave the definite and firm conviction” that the Bankruptcy Court made a mistake. In

4

re Rains, 428 F.3d at 900 (quotation omitted).

5

III.

6

DISCUSSION
On appeal, Appellant raises only issues of law and does not contest the underlying facts.

7

Appellant initially raised two issues: (1) whether the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that

8

Appellant has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of the limited liability

9

companies, which Appellees own 100% of the membership and are managers; and (2) whether

10

the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that 75% of the accounts receivable and/or

11

commissions payable to a limited liability company owned 100% by Appellees are exempt.

12

(Opening Brief 6:9–13). However, Appellant has withdrawn the second issue on appeal, and

13

therefore, only the first issue remains. (See Reply Brief 12:8–15).

14

Appellant argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held in its Exemption Order

15

that Appellant has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of the limited

16

liability companies, which Appellees own 100% of the membership and are managers.

17

(Opening Brief 20:5–7). Appellant asserts that, because bankruptcy law expressly pre-empts

18

state law, “Nevada’s exemption statutes do not provide any separate exemption for ownership

19

interests in limited liability companies,” and “[w]hen Debtors filed their petition, the Trustee

20

stepped into their shoes and the Trustee now owns those 100% membership interests and has

21

the right to control those LLC’s.” (Id. 20:1–5). On the other hand, while Appellees concede

22

that their membership interests in their LLCs are personal property and are included in their

23

bankruptcy estate, they argue that Appellant is limited to a charging order under Nevada state

24

law. (See Answering Brief 18:22–20:3).

25

Page 3 of 5

1

Numerous bankruptcy courts have held, and the Court agrees, that where a debtor has a

2

membership interest in a single-member LLC and files a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter

3

7, the Chapter 7 trustee succeeds to all of the debtor’s rights, including the right to control that

4

entity, and a trustee need not take any further action to comply with state law before exercising

5

such control. See, e.g., In re First Protection, Inc., 440 B.R. 821, 830 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010); In

6

re B&M Land & Livestock, LLC, 498 B.R. 262, 267 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013); In re Albright, 291

7

B.R. 538, 541 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003). Furthermore, the Court agrees that “[s]tate law does not

8

control the administration of property interests that are part of the bankruptcy estate.” In re

9

B&M, 498 B.R. at 268. Accordingly, Appellant is not limited to a charging order under Nevada

10

law, and succeeds to all of Appellees’ rights in the LLCs, including the right to control those

11

entities.

12

However, Appellees argue that Appellant’s rights to manage the limited liability

13

companies should be limited because Appellees’ LLC renders “personal services.” (Answering

14

Brief 18:4–15). In B&M, the court held that “where a debtor has a membership interest in a

15

single-member LLC and files a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee's

16

rights automatically include the right to manage that entity.” 498 B.R. at 267. The B&M court

17

held in dicta, however, that “[t]his principle may be limited where the LLC is run by or deals

18

with matters such as professional practices or personal services. For instance, a trustee likely

19

may not manage a law firm, medical practice, or accounting firm that is organized as an LLC.”

20

Id. Appellees argue that this limitation applies here because Appellees’ LLC requires state

21

examination and licensing in order to be in operation. (Answering Brief 21:5–8, 22:2–3). The

22

Bankruptcy Court agreed with this reasoning. (Transcript of Hearing on November 26, 2013,

23

Dkt. 107, ER 184:20–21).

24

Appellees provide no further support for the application of this limitation. Additionally,

25

even if B&M suggests that there may be a limit on a trustee’s ability to manage certain types of

Page 4 of 5

1

LLCs, the case does not suggest that a trustee is precluded from selling the assets of an LLC.

2

Accordingly, the Court is not convinced that Appellant’s rights to sell or otherwise take

3

ownership of the assets of Appellees’ LLCs should be limited. Therefore, the Bankruptcy

4

Court erred in holding that Appellant “has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any

5

assets of” Appellees’ LLCs. Appellant, as the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, has the right to

6

sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of Appellees’ LLCs.

7

IV.

8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Exemption Order of the Bankruptcy Court filed

January 3, 2014, is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
29
DATED this _____ day of September, 2014.

12
13
14
15
16
17

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 5 of 5