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: Chapter 13 Plan Confirmation - Valuation of a Car

     Two bankruptcy cases help clarify the value that Bankruptcy Courts should place upon a vehicle when considering a Chapter 13 plan confirmation.

     In the case of In Re Mays, the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Virginia, refused to confirm a plan which did not value a Ford pickup, which the debtors proposed to keep, at the truck's retail value as reflected in the NADA Used Car Guide. The Court found that Bankruptcy Code §325(a)(5) provides that if a debtor in Chapter 13 intends to retain property subject to a lien, then the secured creditor must receive the present value of its allowed secured claim. The Court further found that the retail price, as opposed to the acceptable wholesale price, was the most commercially reasonable price.
     In the case of In Re Dews, the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, reached a similar conclusion that retail value is the appropriate value. In doing so, the Court recognized that this valuation was a change to the standard set forth in the case of In Re Jones, which held that the open market between private parties was the appropriate reference point to establish value. The standard was worked out in practice to generally mean somewhere around the average of the wholesale and retail values.
     The lesson of these two cases is that Chapter 13 plans should be reviewed to ensure that value is properly assessed. The end result will be, of course, a higher return on creditor claims.

Bankruptcy: Reaffirmation Required for Certain Abandoned Collateral

     In the case of American National Bank & Trust Co. v. DeJournette, the United States District Court in Danville ruled that where the debtors defaulted on their debt secured by a car and a tractor prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court erred in not requiring the debtors to reaffirm their obligation or redeem the underlying debt in order to retain the secured property.

     The District Court ruled that whether by means of abandonment or claimed exemption, the property at issue was no longer part of the estate. Therefore, the termination of the automatic stay is governed by Bankruptcy Code §362(c)(2), as opposed to Bankruptcy Code §362(c)(1). Pursuant to §362(c)(2), the automatic stay was lifted upon the earlier of the closing of the case and the discharge. Since the automatic stay had already been terminated by operation of §362(c), the District Court ruled that it was incapable of granting the bank's motion to modify the stay. Nevertheless, the District Court determined that it was capable of providing the bank other "effectual" relief. Underlying the bank's request for modification pursuant to §362(d)(1) was a claim that the Bankruptcy Court misapplied Bankruptcy Code §521(2) by not requiring the defaulting debtor to either reaffirm of redeem their obligation in order to retain the secured property. The District Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Court erred in ruling that the debtors did not either have to redeem or reaffirm. In making its decision, the District Court noted that the various circuit courts are split on the issue on whether a non-defaulting debtor must reaffirm or redeem his obligation when he seeks to retain secured collateral, or whether following a Chapter 7 filing, a non-defaulting debtor may simply hold on to the collateral securing the loan and continue making payments under the original loan agreement.
     The District Court concluded that where debtors have defaulted on a secured debt prior to filing a bankruptcy petition, they must reaffirm their obligation or redeem the underlying debt in order to retain the secured property. The District Court noted that one bankruptcy court in this District, in In Re Doss, disagreed with its conclusion and has extended the holding in In Re Belanger, to a situation involving a defaulting debtor. The District Court found that in a situation where the debtor had defaulted on a secured debt prior to filing for bankruptcy, the most efficient and fair remedy is to require the debtor to either surrender the collateral, or, if he desires to retain the collateral, redeem or reaffirm the obligation. Therefore, despite the ruling in Doss, the District Court found that other relevant case law supported its position.
     In conclusion, the District Court found that the appropriate relief in this case was to compel the debtors to either surrender the collateral, or, if they chose to retain the collateral, compel them to either redeem the debt or reaffirm their obligation. Accordingly, the debtors were ordered to file a new statement of intention either to surrender or retain the secured property. If they chose to retain the secured property, the debtors would likewise be ordered to state an intention to either redeem the debt pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §722 or reaffirm their obligation pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §524(c).

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.