Bankruptcy: Preferential Transfer - Purchase Contract

In the case of Sigmon, Trustee v. Royal Cake Co. the United States District Court at Charlotte, North Carolina, reviewed a Bankruptcy Court ruling granting a trustee's objection to the return of a down payment on a purchase contract as an improper preferential transfer.

The District Court found as fact that the debtor was the seller of certain machines who returned to a buyer corporation that corporation's down payment on a contract for the purchase of machines.

The buyer corporation claimed that the down payment was collateral held in trust by the debtor on the buyer's behalf, and that, under North Carolina property law and federal bankruptcy law, the seller of the goods does not hold a property interest in such collateral.

The District Court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court made a proper finding that the debtor did have a property interest in the down payment, and that the return of the payment was made on account of an antecedent debt for the benefit of the creditor. The District Court further concluded that the buyer corporation's claim that the payment was mere collateral or a deposit was flawed because the payment was actually the first payment for the machines purchased. By sending the payment check, the buyer was fulfilling its obligation under the sales contract, not merely guaranteeing future performance of its payment obligations. Once the debtor deposited the buyer's check into its own bank account, commingling the money with its other funds, the debtor had a right to withdraw, transfer or otherwise use the payment funds in any way it wanted.  The debtor's ability to exercise complete dominion and control over the funds was sufficient to demonstrate an interest in property under the preferential transfer provision. Therefore, the Court concluded, the return of the down payment was a transfer of an interest of the debtor in the property.

Collections: Post Judgment Collection - A Focus on Debtor's Interrogatories

Once judgment is entered, what is next? Although all creditors would like for the judgment amount to "fall from the sky", it does not. Sometimes debtors will pay, either in full or in incremental payments. Sometimes creditors can garnish wages or accounts, or issue a levy on property. Sometimes creditors can bring a creditor's bill to sell real estate. But what can be done when the above listed remedies are not, or at least are not yet, options, or when there is no information about the debtor from which to devise a post judgment collection plan? Virginia Code §8.01-506 provides a good start - Debtor's Interrogatories. For the price of a summons to answer interrogatories (usually $44.00 plus service charges) an attorney can summon the debtor to appear before the court granting the judgment (or other court should the matter be transferred by the judgment court) or a Commissioner in Chancery (a lawyer appointed by the court to serve in this capacity) to examine the debtor's personal estate, specifically, to answer questions about income, assets and the debtor's general ability to pay in order to attempt to satisfy the judgment. The summons is enforceable by a capias (arrest warrant) which is issued through the court.

The interrogatory procedure is summary in nature. No pleadings are required. No trial by jury is available.  Under recent amendment to Virginia Code §8.01-506, the creditor may, as part of the interrogatory system, require the production of account books or other writings that contain evidence of the judgment debtor's estate, provided that the creditor gives an affidavit stating that he believes the books exist and identifies them with reasonable certainty.

Virginia Code §8.01-506 allows a debtor to request that the interrogatories be held at a court most convenient for the debtor. Therefore, if the debtor moves far from the creditor's area, it may not be cost effective to pursue the interrogatories.

It is important to note that a creditor cannot conduct debtor's interrogatories - only an attorney can. This certainly can be frustrating for creditors who take their own uncontested judgments and file their own garnishments, but it is a reminder as to why creditors are better served by turning all accounts over to counsel for collection prior to seeking judgments so that counsel can assess the attorney's fee provided in the contract or note, and can keep the entire process moving.

Foreclosure: Deposits

Virginia Code §55-59.4(A)(2) permits the trustee to require of any bidder at any sale a deposit of as much as ten percent of the sales price, unless the deed of trust specifies a higher or lower amount. However, because the statute is not mandatory, the trustee is given the right to waive the deposit if he deems it appropriate, unless the deed of trust requires a specific deposit. The trustee should also consider using a fixed amount as the deposit rather than a percentage of the sales price. Using a percentage of the sales price as the method of determining the required deposit often results in confusion, and the successful bidder has either too much or too little money to deposit. A fixed deposit avoids the confusion and allows all potential buyers to know exactly how much money to bring to the sale to deposit. The fixed deposit should not be excessive but should be of a sufficient amount to ensure that the successful bidder completes the closing of the sale.

Real Estate: Making Owners and General Contractors Personally Liable to Subcontractor, Laborer or Materialman

Virginia Code §43-11 provides a way for owners or general contractors to be made personally liable to subcontractor, laborer or materialman if notice is appropriately given, and if the payer makes payment to the owing party without paying the notifying creditor. Specifically, §43-11 (2) states that:

“…if such subcontractor, or person furnishing labor or material shall at any time after the work is done or material furnished by him and before the expiration of thirty days from the time such building or structure is completed or the work thereon otherwise terminated furnish the owner thereof or his agent and also the general contractor, or the general contractor alone in case he is the only one notified, with a second notice stating a correct account, verified by affidavit, of his actual claim against the general contractor or subcontractor, for work done or materials furnished and of the amount due, then the owner, or the general contractor, if he alone was notified, shall be personally liable to the claimant for the actual amount due to the subcontractor or persons furnishing labor or material by the general contractor or subcontractor, provided the same does not exceed the sum in which the owner is indebted to the general contractor at the time the second notice is given or may thereafter become indebted by virtue of his contract with the general contractor, or in case the general contractor alone is notified the sum in which he is indebted to the subcontractor at the time the second notice is given or may thereafter become indebted by virtue of his contract with the general contractor. But the amount which a person supplying labor or material to a subcontractor can claim shall not exceed the amount for which such subcontractor could file his claim.”

The notices referred to in this code section are commonly referred to in the industry as “42-11 letters”. We have experienced attorneys and staff who can examine title, file mechanic’s liens, and litigate to enforce the same. If you have a need, please call us.