Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 97-1182
v.
L. LAWTON ROGERS, III, d/b/a
Rogers Investments; ROGERS &
KILLEEN,
Defendants-Appellants.
In Re: JOHN GEORGE BROUMAS;
In Re: RUTH D. BROUMAS,
Debtors.
JAMES P. KOCH, Trustee,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. LAWTON ROGERS, III, d/b/a
Rogers Investments; ROGERS &
KILLEEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-95-2429-PJM, BK-91-40752, AP-93-23)
No. 97-1183
Rogers liable on Count III, and alternatively, on Count IV. The bankruptcy court ordered Rogers to pay the Trustee $115,000 under one
count or the other.
All parties noted timely appeals to the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland. On appeal before the district court, the
Trustee only challenged the bankruptcy court's rulings in favor of the
Defendants on Counts I and VI. The Law Firm challenged the bankruptcy court's ruling in favor of the Trustee on Count II, and Rogers
challenged the bankruptcy court's rulings in favor of the Trustee on
Counts III and IV.
The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's finding of no liability on Count I and ordered the Defendants jointly and severally liable for $75,000. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's
finding of liability against the Law Firm on Count II, but also
assessed liability against Rogers.1 The district court affirmed the
bankruptcy court's alternative findings of liability against Rogers on
Counts III and IV, but also assessed the same liability against the Law
Firm.2 Finally, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding of no liability on Count VI with respect to Rogers and the Law
Firm.
All parties noted timely appeals of the district court's final order
to this court. On appeal before us, Rogers and the Law Firm appeal
the district court's adverse rulings on Counts I through IV. In his
cross-appeal, the Trustee appeals the district court's affirmance of the
bankruptcy court's finding of no liability against the Defendants on
Count VI.
II.
We apply the same standard of review as the district court applied
to the bankruptcy court's decision. Findings of fact are reviewed for
clear error, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re
_________________________________________________________________
1 The Trustee did not appeal the bankruptcy court's finding of no liability on Count II with respect to Rogers.
2 The Law Firm was not even named as a party in Counts III and IV.
5
Johnson, 960 F.2d 396, 399 (4th Cir. 1992). We will address the challenged claims in the order in which they appear in the complaint.
III.
Under the current Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy trustee has "extensive power to avoid certain pre-petition transactions which
adversely affect the bankruptcy estate." In re Virginia-Carolina Fin.
Corp., 954 F.2d 193, 196 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 11 U.S.C.
544-551, 553 (1988)). We have characterized a bankruptcy trustee's power to avoid a pre-petition transfer meeting the requirements
of Bankruptcy Code 547(b) as one of "the more important of these
voidable transfer[ ]" powers. Id. In general, Bankruptcy Code
547(b) gives a bankruptcy trustee the power to avoid "a transfer
made within a limited time prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition
that enables a creditor to receive more than the creditor would otherwise receive if, instead, the creditor were limited to his or her share
of a distribution resulting from a Chapter 7 liquidation." Id. Specifically, Bankruptcy Code 547(b) provides:
. . . the trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the
debtor in property -(1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;
(2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed
by the debtor before such transfer was made;
(3) made while the debtor was insolvent;
(4) made -(A) on or within 90 days before the date of the
filing of the petition; or
(B) between ninety days and one year before
the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider;
and
6
We agree with the Defendants and the bankruptcy court that the
Trustee's proof failed to satisfy subsection (b)(5) of Bankruptcy Code
547. As we recently stated in Hagar v. Gibson, 109 F.3d 201 (4th
Cir. 1997), Bankruptcy Code 547(b)(5) protects creditors in receipt
of a pre-petition transfer "who can establish that they received no
more by the payment than they would have received as claimants in
a Chapter 7 liquidation." Id. at 210. This effect, we said, "simply carries out `the common sense notion that a creditor need not return a
sum received from the debtor prior to bankruptcy if the creditor is no
better off vis-a-vis the other creditors of the bankruptcy estate than he
or she would have been had the creditor waited for liquidation and
distribution of the assets of the estate.'" Id. (quoting In re VirginiaCarolina Fin. Corp., 954 F.2d at 199).
Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that the Defendants are
no better off vis-a-vis the other creditors of the Debtors' estate than
they would have been had they not received the transfers of the Deeds
of Trust and waited for liquidation and distribution of the assets of the
Debtors' estate. First, the undisputed evidence establishes that the
Deeds of Trust only served to secure payment of certain debt. Thus,
the Deeds of Trust cannot be characterized as payment of debt, as the
Trustee's position seems to suggest. Second, the Deeds of Trust were
never used to satisfy any of the debt. Third and finally, just months
after the Debtors filed their Chapter 7 petition and prior to liquidation
and distribution of their assets, the undisputed evidence establishes
that the Deeds of Trust were completely and permanently worthless;
thus, they could not be used to improve the Defendants' position
among the creditors of the Debtors' bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C.
506(a) ("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 in the estate's interest
in such property . . . and an unsecured claim to the extent that the
value of such creditor's interest . . . is less than the amount of such
allowed claim."). For these reasons, we reverse the district court's ruling on this claim.3
_________________________________________________________________
3 In a late attempt to bolster his position, the Trustee contended at oral
argument that Bankruptcy Code 550(a) dictates that under Bankruptcy
Code 547(b) he was entitled to recover an amount equal to the amount
8
IV.
Next, Rogers challenges the district court's sua sponte assessment
of liability against him on Count II. According to Rogers, the district
court erred in assessing liability against him on Count II, because the
Trustee did not appeal the bankruptcy court's entry of judgment in his
favor on that count. We agree with Rogers. Because the Trustee did
not appeal the bankruptcy court's adverse ruling on that count, the
issue of whether the bankruptcy court erred in making the ruling was
not before the district court. Accordingly, we reverse the district
court's assessment of liability on Count II against Rogers.
V.
The Law Firm next challenges the district court's affirmance of the
bankruptcy court's entry of judgment in favor of the Trustee on Count
II. Count II alleged in relevant part that under Bankruptcy Code
548(a) the Debtors' transfer of the $50,000 Deed of Trust was
avoidable and recoverable as a fraudulent transfer, because it occurred
within one year before the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the Debtors received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for
the transfer, and the Debtors were insolvent at the time of the transfer.
Bankruptcy Code 548(a) provides, in relevant part:
[a] trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor
in property . . . that was made or incurred on or within one
year before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor
voluntarily or involuntarily-- . . .
_________________________________________________________________
of equity that supported the Deeds of Trust at the times of their respective transfers. The Trustee's contention is readily rejected, because Bankruptcy Code 550, entitled "Liability of transferee of avoided transfer,"
does not apply until a transfer has been determined to be avoidable. See
11 U.S.C. 550(a) (providing that "to the extent that a transfer is
avoided under section 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, 553(b), or 724(a) of this
title, the trustee may recover, for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, the
property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property").
9
C.
As for the antecedent debt requirement under Bankruptcy Code
547(b)(2), the record supports the bankruptcy court's finding on this
issue. Specifically, the record contains a letter dated December 3,
1990, from Rogers to Broumas informing him that he sold all three
parcels located in Ocala, Florida for $115,000. In this letter Rogers
writes that "the potential profit which I may realize is . . . less than
one-half of the net sales price and less than the sum previously transferred by me to you." (J.A. 683) (emphasis added). The bankruptcy
court relied on this letter in finding that the Debtors had transferred
the Ocala, Florida parcels on account of an antecedent debt. We cannot say that its finding is clearly erroneous.
Having rejected all of Rogers' arguments with respect to Count III,
we affirm the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's
assessment of liability against Rogers on Count III.
VIII.
Finally, we address the Trustee's cross-appeal of the district court's
affirmance of the bankruptcy court's decision in favor of the Defendants with respect to Count VI. In Count VI, the Trustee sought to
recover approximately $98,000 from the Defendants, which the
Trustee alleged was transferred to the Defendants during the washtrade scheme. The record reflects that Broumas used a number of
accounts, including accounts of the Defendants, to orchestrate his
_________________________________________________________________
Bankruptcy Code 548(a). Because the evidence supports the bankruptcy court's finding that the Debtors' interest in the mortgage on the
third parcel was transferred to Rogers within one year of the filing of the
petition, we reject Rogers' challenge. We also note that Rogers has
admitted that he gave no consideration for the assignment, thus establishing under subsection (a)(2)(A) of Bankruptcy Code 548 that the Debtors received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the
transfer. Because Rogers does not contest the remaining element of a
fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code 548(a)--that the Debtors
were insolvent at the time of transfer--we, accordingly, affirm the district court's decision with respect to Count IV.
16