TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Cattle Complex Corp.

In Re CATTLE COMPLEX CORP., A/K/A Chaves County Cattle Company and “3C”, Debtor

In re Cattle Complex Corp., 54 B.R. 50 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
November 25, 1985
Docket
No. 19-10354
Judges
Mark B. McFeeley
Citations
54 B.R. 50

Opinion — McFEELEY

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONVERT TO CHAPTER 7 MARK B. McFEELEY, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came before the Court on August 29, 1985, on motion by Production Credit Association to convert this proceeding from chapter 11 to chapter 7. The following parties were represented by counsel:

Debtor by Mark Sessions, Randall Fields and Douglas T. Francis Production Credit Association by Charles Cresswell Chaves County Cattle Corp. by Susan Austin Bank of Northern New Mexico and Jeffrey Lane by Daniel J. Behles Unsecured Creditor’s Committee by Michael Wile Federal Land Bank of Wichita by Gail Gottlieb In response to the motion to convert the debtor alleged that it was a “farmer” 11 U.S.C. 101(17) in that it was engaged in activity falling within the term “farming operation” as defined in 11 U.S.C. 101(18). The debtor corporation is a feedlot. It is engaged in feeding cattle, the majority of which belong to other people, until such cattle are ready for slaughter. The owners of the cattle placed on the debtor’s feedlot pay the debtor to feed, water and otherwise care for the cattle. Debtor raises little, if any, of the feed which the cattle consume. The Bankruptcy Code expanded the definition of “farmer” to explicitly include corporations See, 2 Colliers on Bankruptcy, § 101.17 (15 Ed.1983).

The question for decision is whether the feedlot operation can be considered a “farming operation” as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. The legislative history of 11 U.S.C. 101(18) indicates that the term “farming operation” should be given a broad interpretation. 124 Cong.Rec. S17, 406-07 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 1978) (remarks of Sen. DeConcini);

In re Blanton Smith Corporation, 3 C.B.C.2d 358, 7 B.R. 410 , 6 B.C.D. 1389 (M.D.Tenn.1980).

In High-Plains Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 496 F.2d 520 (10th Cir.1974) the Court held that a feedlot was a “farmer” under the United States Treasury Regulation defining “farmer.” That definition is certainly no more encompassing than the Bankruptcy Code definition for “farming operation.”

Having concluded that the debtor is a “farmer”, 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (c) prohibits the Court from converting the case unless the debtor requests such conversion. The debtor has made no such request nor has it *52 consented to conversion. Production Credit Association’s motion to convert must be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Production Credit Association’s motion to convert to chapter 7 is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1987: 119872026peak 1987 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Martin78 B.R. 593 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1987)

Most recent

  1. In re Martin78 B.R. 593 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1987)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Blanton Smith Corp., 7 B.R. 410 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1980) 29
Hi-Plains Enters. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 496 F.2d 520 (10th Cir. 1974) 16

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