TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Boogaart of Florida, Inc.

In Re BOOGAART OF FLORIDA, INC., Et Al., Debtors

In re Boogaart of Fla., Inc., 23 B.R. 157 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1982)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
September 16, 1982
Docket
No. 18-24777
Judges
Sidney M. Weaver
Citations
23 B.R. 1571982 Bankr. LEXIS 33289 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 849

Opinion — Weaver

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ALLOWANCE AND FOR PAYMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE FILED BY SUN BANK OF MIAMI SIDNEY M.. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS MATTER came on to be heard by the Court on September 10, 1982 upon the Request For Allowance and For Payment of An Administrative Expense filed by Sun Bank of Miami (“Sun Bank”) and the Objection thereto filed by the Debtors. The Court has examined Sun Bank’s Request for Allowance and the Objection thereto, has considered the agreed facts and the arguments of counsel for the parties, and has been otherwise fully advised in the premises.

Sun Bank’s claim in the amount of $6,610:39 represents the final overdraft balance in certain checking accounts which were maintained at Sun Bank by Boogaart of Florida, Inc. (“Boogaart-Florida”) prior to the filing of the latter’s Chapter 11 petition for reorganization on March 30, 1981. The overdraft was created when a number of checks which had been deposited by Boogaart-Florida in the accounts pre-petition and for which Boogaart-Florida had received provisional credits were returned unpaid after the commencement of the Chapter 11 proceedings. Sun Bank asserts that it is entitled to receive payment of its claim as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b)(1)(A) because the overdraft balance represents the actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate of the Debtors. The Debtors assert that Sun Bank’s claim is not allowable as an *158 administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b)(1)(A) but that the claim should be reclassified and allowed as a general unsecured claim.

The Court finds that Sun Bank’s claim is not allowable as an administrative expense and should be reclassified and allowed as a general unsecured claim. It is clear that only those obligations of a debt- or’s estate which arise post-petition and fall within the parameters of 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b) are entitled to treatment as administrative expenses. Sun Bank’s claim, consisting of the final overdraft balance in the accounts maintained pre-petition by Boogaart-Flori-da, does not derive from or represent any actual or necessary costs and expenses incurred by Sun Bank after the commencement of the Chapter 11 proceedings in an effort to preserve the estate of the Debtors for the benefit of all creditors.

See 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b)(1)(A);

In re Meyer’s Inc., 15 B.R. 390, 392 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1981). Under applicable Florida law, Sun Bank’s claim is properly assertable only against its depositor, Boogaart-Florida as Debtor, and not against Boogaart-Florida as Debtor-in-Possession, a separate entity which did not maintain any accounts at Sun Bank.

Florida Statutes §§ 674.201, 674.212 and 674.401 (1981). The mere fact that the overdraft balance was computed or liquidated after the commencement of the bankruptcy ease does not transform the Sun Bank claim into an allowable expense of administration.

See 11 U.S.C. § 101 (4)(A). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Sun Bank’s Request for Allowance and For Payment of An Administrative Expense is hereby denied with prejudice and Sun Bank’s claim in the amount of $6,610.39 is hereby reclassified and allowed in full as a general unsecured claim against the substantively consolidated estates of the Debtors to be paid in accordance with the Debtors’ Consolidated Plan of Reorganization, as modified.

How later courts describe this case

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

1983: 11984: 21985: 11986: 11991: 12006: 119832026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Hearth & Hinge, Inc.28 B.R. 595 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983)
  2. In re Hackney351 B.R. 179 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2006)
  3. Brown v. Traders National Bank (In re Spears)39 B.R. 91 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984)
  4. In re Baldwin-United Corp.43 B.R. 443 (S.D. Ohio 1984)
  5. Firearms Import & Export Corp. v. United Capitol Insurance (In re Firearms Import & Export Corp.)131 B.R. 1009 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1991)
  6. In re Frank Meador Buick, Inc.59 B.R. 787 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1986)

Most recent

  1. In re Hackney351 B.R. 179 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2006)
  2. Firearms Import & Export Corp. v. United Capitol Insurance (In re Firearms Import & Export Corp.)131 B.R. 1009 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1991)
  3. In re Frank Meador Buick, Inc.59 B.R. 787 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1986)
  4. Alchar Hardware Co., Inc. And Knight & Wall Co., Inc., Debtors. Jeanette E. Tavormina, Trustee v. Alan D. Weiner759 F.2d 867 (11th Cir. 1985)
  5. In re Baldwin-United Corp.43 B.R. 443 (S.D. Ohio 1984)
  6. Brown v. Traders National Bank (In re Spears)39 B.R. 91 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Meyer's Inc., 15 B.R. 390 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1981) 15

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