Bankruptcy: Fraudulent Real Estate Conveyances in a Chapter 7 Case

     In the case of Gold v. Laines, the United States Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria ruled that a Chapter 7 Trustee may recover two properties – the debtor’s home and a rental townhouse – as voluntary and fraudulent conveyances under Virginia law and federal bankruptcy law. The Court further denied the debtor a discharge for having fraudulently transferred the property within one year of the filing of his case. 

     The Court found as facts in Laines that the debtor bought his home and took title solely in his name. Fifteen weeks later, he married his wife, and three days later, he transferred his home to his wife and himself as tenants by the entirety with the common law right of survivorship by “Deed of Gift”. Two years later the debtor and his wife conveyed the home to the wife and a third party by deed of gift. As a result of this, husband and wife owned the home as joint tenants with the common law right of survivorship. 

     The townhouse was also solely owned by the debtor prior to his marriage. Soon after marriage he conveyed it to himself and his wife as tenants by the entirety. A little over a year later the debtor and his wife conveyed the townhouse to themselves and a different third party as tenants in common. This deed also was captioned “Deed of Gift.” The debtor filed for bankruptcy two years later. 

     The Court noted that by law the Bankruptcy Trustee could avoid the last transfer of the house and the last transfer of the townhouse if he proved his case that the transfers were fraudulent conveyances under the Virginia fraudulent conveyance statute, Va. Code Section 55-80. The Bankruptcy Trustee pointed to multiple badges of fraud. He argued that the transfers were to the debtor’s wife and himself as tenants by the entirety. The Debtor retained an interest in the transferred properties and possession of them. There was no consideration. They were made when his start-up venture, a telecommunications company, was heavily in debt, on a debt he had guaranteed. 

     The Court stated that the burden shifted to the wife to come forward and show that the transactions were bona fides and not merely contrivances to place the debtor’s property beyond the reach of creditors. She did not testify. The Court held that the debtor’s actions, in absence of satisfactory evidence of the bona fide nature of the transactions, reflected that the transactions were not undertaken for stated reasons, but were undertaken with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors. The Court found that neither of the third parties took the property in good faith. They had sufficient knowledge of the debtor’s circumstances and the unusual nature of the transactions to put a reasonable person on notice and cause them to inquire further. The Court held that the Bankruptcy Trustee could recover the house and the townhouse from the two third parties under Virginia Code Section 550 (a).

     The Court also found that the debtor’s intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors by the last conveyance of the home was clear. That intent was sufficient even though the transfer itself was not necessary to protect the asset from his creditors.

     The tenants by the entireties transfers of the house and the townhouse were avoided under Virginia Code Section 55-80, as implemented by Bankruptcy Code Section 544(b), and both properties were recoverable by the Bankruptcy Trustee. The debtor was also denied a discharge under Bankruptcy Code Section 727(a)(2) as a result of his last fraudulent transfer of the home.

Real Estate: Criminal Liability for Misuse of Construction Funds

     Virginia Code §43-13 provides that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor must be used to pay persons performing labor or furnishing material. Any contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director or employee of such contractor or subcontractor who, with intent to defraud, retain or use the funds, or any part thereof, paid by the owner or his agent, shall be guilty of larceny in appropriating such funds for any other use while any amount for which the contractor or subcontractor may be liable or become liable under his contract for such labor or materials remains unpaid, and may be prosecuted upon complaint of any person or persons who have not been fully paid any amount due them. 

     The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract, before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure, for any other purpose than paying such amounts, shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. 

Collections: Bad Check Collection and the Fair Debt Practices Collection Act

     Those who actively engage in the collection of debts as a third party are cognizant of the fact that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to their collection activities. However, does the FDCPA apply to notices given as a prerequisite to criminal prosecution for passing bad checks? The United States District Court at Charlottesville, Virginia, in the case of Shifflett v. Accelerated Recovery, examined the issue but did not give a definitive answer.
     Virginia Code §18.2-183 states that letters are required to be mailed to debtors to establish a prima facie case of fraud or knowledge of insufficient funds in order to pursue criminal prosecution. The creditor/defendant in Shifflett argued that it had never sought recovery through the civil process, it had always pursued a criminal warrant in cases where it was unable to collect an unpaid check.
     The debtors/plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the creditor was required to give notices pursuant to the FDCPA. The essence of the debtors' argument was that the notices sent by the creditor, regardless of the creditor's practice or intent, constituted a "communication" pursuant to the language of FDCPA §1692(a) and therefore trigger the notice requirements of FDCPA §1692(a).
     The Court did not rule as to whether the FDCPA applies to notices pursuant to Virginia Code §18.2-183. Instead, the Court focused on distinctions between the creditor's letters in Shifflett and that which is required by Virginia Code §18.2-183 for criminal prosecution. The Court found that the creditor's letters did not evidence the creditor's intent to pursue criminal remedies as opposed to civil remedies. The creditor claimed that the language of its letters referring to "the legal process" indicated its intent to use the criminal legal processing not the civil legal process. The Court, however, stated that it was unable to discern precisely in what manner the phrase "legal process" objectively discriminates between the criminal legal process and the civil legal process.
     The Court also noted that the creditor's letters also advised the debtors that payment must be made within ten days from the date of the letter. Virginia Code §18.2-183 provides that notice mailed by certified mail or registered mail with evidence of returned receipt shall be deemed sufficient and equivalent to notice having been received by the maker or drawer. The creditor did not present evidence that it sent the letters by either certified or registered mail with the request of a returned receipt.
     The Court also noted that the creditor's letters stated explicitly that it is "attempting to collect a debt..." By contrast, the Court stated that it could not locate any language within the letters by which even vaguely suggest that the creditor had sent the notices in furtherance of pursuing a criminal proceeding.
     Accordingly, the Court found that the creditor failed to demonstrate that the letters were sent to the debtors pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code §18.2-183, and therefore, found the creditor liable for its failure to comply with the notice requirements of §1692(a) of the FDCPA.
     The lesson from Shifflett - when contemplating pursuing legal measures for “bad checks” it is important to use counsel with experience in both criminal and civil law.

Bankruptcy: Retirement Plan Exemptions - IRA - SEP - Pension Plan in Chapter 7

     The United States Bankruptcy Court, in Alexandria, in the case of In re: Bissell, ruled that where a debtor has an IRA, an SEP and an ERISA-qualified pension plan, his exemption under Virginia Code §34-34 is computed without regard to the pension plans. The Bankruptcy Court rejected the creditor’s attempt to apply the value of the ERISA-qualified plan to the amount exempt under Virginia law, so as to wipe out the exemption for the IRA or the SEP and obtain an additional $71,538 for the bankruptcy estate.

     The debtor asserted that the maximum exemption allowable under Virginia Code §34-34 for his individual retirement account and his simplified employer plan was computed without regard to his ERISA-qualified pension plan. He aggregated the value of the IRA and the SEP and applied the maximum allowable under exemption, $52,955, against this amount. He acknowledged that since the IRA and SEP have a total value of $71,538.52, the excess over the maximum allowable exemption of the IRA and SEP, $18,583.52, was not exempt under Virginia Code §34-34. The ERISA-qualified pension plan does not form a part of the computation because it, unlike the IRA and SEP, is not property of the estate.
     The creditor asserted that the value of the ERISA-qualified pension plan must first be applied to the $52,955 amount exempt under Virginia Code §34-34. Since the pension plan had a value of $363,915.13, this method of computing the allowable exemption would exhaust the $52,955 exemption allowed under §34-34. There would be no exemption remaining available for the IRA or the SEP and the full value of the two accounts, $71,538.52, would be turned over to the trustee. 
     The Bankruptcy Court found that the creditor’s interpretation of §34-34 was contrary to the commonly accepted practice. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the definition of “retirement plan” in Virginia Code §34-34 must be read narrowly to exclude ERISA-qualified pension plans. To hold otherwise would invoke federal preemption which would exclude ERISA-qualified pension plans in any event and possibly preempt the entire statute. It would frustrate the General Assembly’s intent to protect retirement plans.
     The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the Virginia General Assembly confronted the inherent problems in using §55-19 and spendthrift trusts to protect retirement plans. It sought for the first time to comprehensively remedy the problems and to provide greater and better protection for retiree’s pension plans, in particular ERISA-qualified pension plans. The General Assembly’s chosen route was the establishment of a uniform exemption for all retirees. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Patterson v. Shumate changed one of the underlying assumptions of the General Assembly by definitively holding that ERISA-qualified pension plans were not property of the bankruptcy estate. Had the General Assembly intended to adhere to the uniform exemption for retirees, it could have easily amended Virginia Code §34-34 to expressly reduce the exemption of non-ERISA-qualified pension plans, such as IRAs and SEPs, that were covered by Virginia Code §34-34 by the amount of any ERISA-qualified pension plan excluded from the bankruptcy estate or exempt from creditors in a state court proceeding. It did not. It accepted that ERISA-qualified pension plans could be reached by neither bankruptcy trustees in bankruptcy nor creditors in state court and it expanded the exemptions available based, in part, on this premise. The 1996 General Assembly protected rollover contributions. In 1999, the General Assembly added Roth IRAs. With some restrictions, the 1999 amendment also placed IRAs, SEPs, and Roth IRAs on the same footing as 401 plans and other ERISA-qualified pension plans. This partially reduced the inequality between those plans, although it did not completely eliminate it. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the creditor’s position in this case ran counter to the expanding protections provided by the General Assembly over the last decade and the judicial role of liberal construction of exemption statutes. Its implicit construction contracts the exemption and magnifies the very inequality the General Assembly sought to minimize.
     The Bankruptcy Court overruled the creditor’s objection to debtor’s claim of exemption. The amount of the exemption of the IRA and the SEP under Virginia Code §34-34 was computed without regard to the ERISA-qualified pension plan. The IRA and SEP were exempt in the aggregated amount of $52,955 plus any additional amount allowable under Virginia Code §34-4.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability Determination: Willful & Malicious Injury v. Embezzlement

     In the case of Robbins v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., the United States District Court at Harrisonburg affirmed a bankruptcy court's ruling that a debt was non-dischargeable under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6) as willful and malicious injury. The District Court found that the debtor held a 98 percent interest in a limited partnership which owned a shopping center. The partnership had granted to a bank a second deed of trust on the shopping center and assigned to the bank the rents from the shopping center as security for portions of two loans made by the bank. The debtor, however, under a workout agreement, later began receiving rent distributions from the partnership in his capacity as a limited partner, and he used nearly $71,000 of the distributions for personal expenses.  

     The District Court noted from the Bankruptcy Court's finding that the debtor made the determination on his own to take the money without consideration of the workout agreement or of the bank's rights to the rents. The District Court found that the Bankruptcy Court correctly applied the malice standard as established in that circuit.
     Although the Bankruptcy Court did not explicitly state that it found malice, malice could be inferred from debtor's actions in receiving the distributions, placing the rents in his own account and making personal expenditures. The debtor took such actions all in disregard of and without benefit to the bank's security interest in the rents and at a time when he was suffering financially.
     The District Court ruled that the bank needed only to show that the debtor's conversion was in deliberate and intentional disregard of its rights. Even if the debtor's subjective intent was relevant, the defendant's assertion that the Bankruptcy Court failed to consider his state of mind was without merit considering the debtor's own testimony relating to the receipt of the distributions, deposit of the money into his personal account and subsequent expenditures on personal items.
     The District Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Court's finding that debtor's receipt of the rent distributions injured the bank was not clearly erroneous. In receiving the distributions the debtor knowingly disregarded the bank's interest in the rents and breached the workout agreement. The debtor's use of the cash for personal purposes did not benefit but injured the bank to the tune of $297,000. The bank could not exercise control over its collateral at a time when the debtor was experiencing serious financial troubles. Consequently, the District Court found the debt was non-dischargeable as a willful and malicious injury to the bank because the debtor knowingly took the money without concern for the bank's rights.
     The bank, in its cross-appeal, argued that the Bankruptcy Court erred in rejecting its claim that the debt was non-dischargeable as an embezzlement under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(4).
     The parties treated the bank's interest in the rents assignment and the deed of trust as security for the debt on two loans. That interest did not defeat the partnership's interest in the rents. As a limited partner in the partnership, the debtor was entitled to cash distributions made to partners. Thus, the rents did not constitute property of another which debtor could appropriate, and debtor's embezzlement claim failed. Further, the District Court ruled that the bank failed to sustain its burden of proving debtor acted with fraudulent intent.

Real Estate: Criminal Liability for Misuse of Construction Funds

     Virginia Code §43-13 provides that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor must be used to pay persons performing labor or furnishing material. Any contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director or employee of such contractor or subcontractor who, with intent to defraud, retain or use the funds, or any part thereof, paid by the owner or his agent, shall be guilty of larceny in appropriating such funds for any other use while any amount for which the contractor or subcontractor may be liable or become liable under his contract for such labor or materials remains unpaid, and may be prosecuted upon complaint of any person or persons who have not been fully paid any amount due them.
     The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract, before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure, for any other purpose than paying such amounts, shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debt - False Financial Statement in Chapter 7 Case

     Judge Tice, United States Bankruptcy Court in Richmond, denied discharge of a debt in a Chapter 7 case. The case was Global Express Money Orders, Inc. v. Davis. In Davis, the debtor previously had a convenience store that sold the creditor’s money orders through the store. The debtor still owed the creditor ($71,168.55) for some of these money orders. At issue was the debtor’s financial statement provided to the creditor at the commencement of the business between them. 

     The Court found that the debtor’s financial statement was materially false. In fact, at trial the debtor did not seriously question the inaccuracy of the statement. Rather, he tried to distance himself from its preparation and delivery to the creditor. In the financial statement the debtor provided false information as to cash in a checking account, the value of his personal residence and a beach condominium, the value of his equity in certain investments, value of mutual funds and an expected federal tax refund.
     The Court further found that the creditor required the personal financial statement of debtors as a condition precedent of the business arrangement; that the debtor, with intent to deceive, published the materially false financial statement and caused it to be delivered to the creditor; and that in contracting with the creditor and allowing the entity to incur substantial indebtedness, the creditor reasonably relied upon materially false asset entries in the financial statement, which debt was indemnified by the debtor personally.
     The Court rejected the debtor’s argument that the creditor failed to prove that he prepared the financial statement and authorized its delivery, i.e., publication with intent to deceive, to the creditor. The Court determined that the evidence showed that in the debtor’s presence and with his knowledge, the financial statement was delivered to the creditor by an (unknown) employee of the debtor’s business. The Court ruled that this evidence was sufficient to require some better explanation from the debtor than he provided. The Court stated that it did not believe the debtor’s evasive testimony that he was too busy to be bothered, and knew nothing about the contents of the financial statement or the circumstances surrounding its delivery to the creditor. The Court determined that at the very least, the debtor recklessly allowed his financial statement to be used by the creditor for its consideration of the business transaction, and his reckless indifference was sufficient to satisfy the publication with intent to deceive element of Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(2)(B).
     As to damages, the debtor argued that the loss of payment of the trust balance due was not damage or loss resulting from his publication of the false financial statement, as required by the statute. Rather, the debtor stated that the loss resulted from the failure of store employees to separate money order sales. Moreover, according to the debtor, his stores were not generating enough revenue to pay the current liabilities, and there was no evidence that he personally took funds or caused the shortage. However, the Court found it ironic that the debtor could argue that it was his employees who failed to comply with the trust agreement requirement for segregating trust fund receipts of the creditor. The debtor agreed to indemnify the creditor for his business’s indebtedness under the trust agreement, and his inability to make good on the indemnity was a direct result of his financial problems and ensuing bankruptcy. Although the Court stated that causation was not a necessary or proper element of the false financial statement issue, the Court simply found that the debtor’s false financial statement was a proximate cause of the loss.