TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Zarowitz

In Re Hal ZAROWITZ and Barbara Zarowitz, Debtors. in Re Stuart BUCHALTER and Ilene Buchalter, Debtors

In re Zarowitz, 36 B.R. 906 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
February 7, 1984
Docket
No. 19-10518
Judges
Jeremiah E. Berk
Citations
36 B.R. 90610 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1721984 Bankr. LEXIS 630111 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 703

Opinion — Berk

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEBTORS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASES PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1307 (b)

JEREMIAH E. BERK, Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue presented is whether Chapter 13 debtors may use Bankruptcy Code § 1307(b) to dismiss their case as of right in the face of a pending motion under § 1307(c) to convert their case to Chapter 7 liquidation. This Court holds that Chapter 13 debtors have an absolute right to dismiss their case pursuant to § 1307(b), provided that the case was not filed for an improper purpose, was not filed in bad faith, and did not constitute an abuse or misuse of the bankruptcy process.

FINDINGS OF FACT On July 19, 1983 the joint debtors, formerly business associates, filed these companion Chapter 13 cases. During the pend-ency of these cases and prior to the confirmation hearings, Key Bank of Southeastern New York, N.A., a secured creditor in each case, moved for an order dismissing the cases in their entirety alleging, in substance, that the plans as proposed were not feasible and otherwise not able to be confirmed. At the hearing on the secured creditor’s motions to dismiss pursuant to § 1307(c), which hearing was noticed to all creditors in each case, the Chapter 13 trustee appeared, opposed and moved, also pursuant to § 1307(c), to convert the cases to Chapter 7 alleging that unsecured creditors would receive a substantial distribution in a bankruptcy liquidation. The debtors thereupon joined in the creditor’s motions to dismiss, opposed the trustee’s motions to convert, and by separate notice to all creditors in each case moved for dismissal pursuant to § 1307(b). The debtors maintain that dismissal of their cases would allow them to refinance their respective homestead properties so as to provide funds for distribution to all creditors greater than a liquidating trustee could achieve. No unsecured creditor appeared on the return date of either noticed motion.

The debtors take the position that they have an absolute right to have their cases dismissed pursuant to § 1307(b), notwithstanding that the trustee may have earlier moved for conversion, and notwithstanding that conversion may be in the best interest of creditors. In support of their position the debtors point to the apparent mandatory language of § 1307(b) and its legislative history which requires the Court, on request of the debtor, to dismiss the case provided it has not been previously converted into Chapter 13 from Chapter 7 or Chapter 11.

*908 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After reviewing the legislative history and case law to date, this Court is satisfied that § 1307(b) grants to Chapter 13 debtors an absolute right to have their cases dismissed at any time prior to entry of an order of conversion, provided that the cases had not been filed for an improper purpose, in bad faith, or to abuse or misuse the bankruptcy process. The Chapter 13 trustee herein does not allege improper purpose, bad faith filing or such abuse or misuse. Rather, the trustee asserts that conversion, as opposed to dismissal, would be in the best interest of all creditors.

The developed case law on this issue is persuasive and supports the debtors’ absolute right to dismiss a Chapter 13 case.

See, In re Benediktsson, 34 B.R. 349 , 11 B.C.D. 209 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Wash.1983) and cases cited therein;

In re Gillion, 36 B.R. 901 (D.C.E.D.Ark.1983), rev’g, 31 B.R. 550 , 10 B.C.D. 1354 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Ark., 1983).

This Court is mindful of the potential for abuse were Chapter 13 debtors able to use with impunity the bankruptcy court as a legal playground or revolving door, filing and dismissing bankruptcy cases at will so as to delay, frustrate and harass legitimate creditor interests.

See, e.g., In re Bystrek, 17 B.R. 894 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa. 1982);

In re Whitten, 11 B.R. 333 (Bkrtcy. D.C.1981). Those debtors who attempt to misuse the automatic stay or other protections or benefits attendant to Chapter 13, on the return date of a motion to convert, might then move to dismiss as of right under § 1307(b). If it can be demonstrated that the Chapter 13 case was filed for an improper purpose, in bad faith or was otherwise filed to abuse or misuse the bankruptcy process, the bankruptcy court should deny such debtor-requested dismissal in favor of a pending motion to convert.

See generally Ordin, The Good Faith Principle in the Bankruptcy Code: A Case Study, 38

The Business Lawyer 1795 (1983).

No improper purpose, bad faith, misuse or abuse of the bankruptcy process having been alleged by the trustee or any other party in interest herein, this Court is satisfied that the legislative history and case law interpreting § 1307(b) and (c) permit dismissal of these cases on the debtors’ motions, notwithstanding that conversion to Chapter 7 might, as the trustee alleges, be in the best interest of creditors.

It is therefore, ORDERED that the debtors’ motions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307 (b) to dismiss their Chapter 13 cases are granted; the Chapter 13 trustee’s motions pursuant to § 1307(c) for conversion of the cases to Chapter 7 are denied; and the within Chapter 13 cases are hereby dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that the Chapter 13 trustee be awarded the sum of $50.00 in each case as reimbursement of administrative costs and expenses.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11985: 11986: 21988: 21989: 11991: 11995: 11996: 11998: 22019: 119842026peak 1986 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gaudet v. Kirshenbaum Investment Co. (In re Gaudet)132 B.R. 670 (D.R.I. 1991)
  2. In re Jacobs43 B.R. 971 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1984)
  3. In re Rebeor89 B.R. 314 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1988)
  4. In re Greenberg200 B.R. 763 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  5. In re Harper-Elder184 B.R. 403 (D.D.C. 1995)
  6. In re Powers48 B.R. 120 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Mark Wayne Grigsby and Darita Lashon GrigsbyNo. 19-10027 (Bankr. W.D. La. Mar. 13, 2019)
  2. In re Barbieri226 B.R. 531 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)
  3. Clearstory & Co. v. Blevins225 B.R. 591 (D. Maryland 1998)
  4. In re Greenberg200 B.R. 763 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  5. In re Harper-Elder184 B.R. 403 (D.D.C. 1995)
  6. Gaudet v. Kirshenbaum Investment Co. (In re Gaudet)132 B.R. 670 (D.R.I. 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
In re Gillion, 31 B.R. 550 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1983) 9
In re Bystrek, 17 B.R. 894 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982) 44
In re Whitten, 11 B.R. 333 (D.D.C. 1981) 28
In re Gillion, 36 B.R. 901 (E.D. Ark. 1983) 23
In re Benediktsson, 34 B.R. 349 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1983) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list