In re Hanna

20 Citing cases

  1. In re Banks

    252 B.R. 399 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that the debtor "[h]aving once converted her case from chapter 13 to chapter 7 . . . [was] prohibited by 11 U.S.C. § 706" from re-converting her case back to chapter 13, and that the bankruptcy court did not have discretion to allow such a conversion

    Cases holding that § 706(a) bars re-conversion include: In re Carter, 84 B.R. 744, 748 (D.Kan. 1988); In re Vitti, 132 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1991); In re Bryan, 109 B.R. 534, (Bankr.D.D.C. 1990); In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 594 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1989); In re Richardson, 43 B.R. 636, 638 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1984); and In re Ghosh, 38 B.R. 600, 603 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1984). Cases holding that the court has discretion to permit re-conversion, but denying re-conversion based on the facts of the case include: In re Somers Corp., 123 B.R. 35, 37 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1990); In re Johnson, 116 B.R. 224, 227 (Bankr.N.D.Idaho 1990); In re Trevino, 78 B.R. 29, 32 (Bankr.M.D.Pa. 1987); and In re Walker, 77 B.R. 803, 805 (Bankr.D.Nev. 1987).

  2. In re Turner

    Case No. 03-10017 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Sep. 6, 2005)

    Some courts have held that the statute does not permit a second conversion, while others have found it is within the court's discretion to permit it under the right circumstances. Compare, for example, In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989) with In re Masterson, 141 B.R. 84 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1992). This court believes the better reasoned approach based on the plain language of the statute and the legislative history is that the debtor is limited to one opportunity to convert his case to another bankruptcy chapter.

  3. In Matter of Hall

    Case Number 03-42223 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2005)

    An examination of those cases reveal that two lines of authority have developed with regard to this issue. One line construes the plain language of § 706 and its legislative history as imposing an absolute prohibition on a second conversion. SeeIn re Carter, 84 B.R. 744, 747-48 (D. Kan. 1988); In re Baker, 289 B.R. 764, 768-70 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2003); In re Hardin, 301 B.R. 298, 300 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2003);In re Banks, 252 B.R. 399, 402-403 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000);In re Vitti, 132 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991); In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 593-94 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989). Courts limiting the right of conversion to a single opportunity have validated their decision on policy grounds by noting that: I have previously considered this issue, but declined to establish a rule since debtor in that case was ineligible for conversion under either of the two competing standards . SeeIn re Stewart, No. 91-42252, 1994 WL 16006137, at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. June 21, 1994).

  4. In re Baker

    Case No. 00-00023-DHW (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Feb. 25, 2003)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that under § 706, "a [d]ebtor loses his right to convert his case to a case under Chapter 13 if the case previously has been converted" and that "it is not in the [c]ourt's discretion to allow reconversion"

    First, there are those courts which read Section 706(a) as barring conversion if the case was previously converted. See In re Carter, 84 B.R. 744, 747-48 (D. Kan. 1988); In re Banks, 252 B.R. 399, 402-403 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000); Inre Vitti, 132 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991); In re Bryan, 109 B.R. 534, 534 (Bankr. D. D.C. 1990); In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 593-94 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989); In re Richardson, 43 B.R. 636, 638 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1984); In re Nimai Kumar Ghosh, 38 B.R. 600, 603 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1984). Second, there are those courts which read Section 706(a) to permit reconversion within the Bankruptcy Court's discretion.

  5. In re Masterson

    141 B.R. 84 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1992)   Cited 22 times
    Allowing a second conversion requires the court to carefully scrutinize the debtor's circumstances

    See In re Carter, 84 B.R. 744, 748 (D.Kan. 1988); In re Vitti, 132 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1991); In re Bryan, 109 B.R. 534 (Bankr.D.D.C. 1990); In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 594 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1989); In re Richardson, 43 B.R. 636, 638 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1984); and In re Ghosh, 38 B.R. 600, 603 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1984). Other courts have held that a second conversion is possible, but have refused conversions in the exercise of their discretion on the facts before them.

  6. In re Vitti

    132 B.R. 229 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that chapter 7 debtor whose case was previously converted from chapter 13 to chapter 7 could not permissibly re-convert the case back to a case under chapter 13

    Thus, it is clear from the plain language of § 706(a) and its legislative history that the debtor cannot convert his chapter 7 case to a case under chapter 13 because it had previously been converted to 7 from 13. See In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 593-94 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1989); In re Carter, 84 B.R. 744, 747 (D.Kan. 1988). Moreover, contrary to the debtor's assertion, § 706(c) does not give him an independent right to convert to chapter 13.

  7. Pookrum v. Bank of Am., N.A.

    512 B.R. 781 (D. Md. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a debtor may seek to convert a case that was previously converted to Chapter 7 to Chapter 11 under 11 U.S.C. § 706(b)

    See, e.g., In re Bryan, 109 B.R. 534, 534 (Bankr.D.D.C.1990) (Chapter 11 to 7 to 13); In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 592–94 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989) (Chapter 13 to 7 to 13). The Senate Report on the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 discusses Section 706:

  8. In re Frazier

    Bankruptcy No. 17-01314 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Sep. 26, 2019)

    Some courts have interpreted § 706(a) as providing a strict prohibition on reconversion from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13, if the debtor has previously converted under § 1307. In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989); In re Carter, 84 B.R. 744, 748 (D.Kan. 1988); In re Vitti, 132 B.R. 229 (Bankr. D.Conn. 1991); In re Banks, 252 B.R. 399, 403 (Bankr.

  9. In re Dugger

    Case No.: 6:16-bk-04010-CCJ (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2017)

    11 USC §706(a). In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591, 592 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989)(Proctor, J.); In re Simmons, 2014 WL 6808613, *1 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014) (Jennemann, J.) ("Even if the Court had the discretion to allow the Debtors to reconvert to Chapter 13, the Debtors have not offered any reasons why I should allow it in this instance.) In re Banks, 252 B.R. 399 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000).

  10. In re Green

    Case No. 10-00072 (Bankr. D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2013)

    None of the cases cited to by the trustee involve a debtor's request to convert her case from a case under chapter 13 to a case under chapter 7. See In re Vitti, 132 B.R. 229 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991) (holding that chapter 7 debtor whose case was previously converted from chapter 13 to chapter 7 could not permissibly re-convert the case back to a case under chapter 13); In re Baker, 289 B.R. 764, 769 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2003) (holding that chapter 7 debtor loses his right to convert his chapter 7 case to a case under chapter 13 if the case was previously converted); In re Banks, 252 B.R. 399 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000) (denying debtor's request to re-convert her chapter 7 case to a case under chapter 13); In re Bryan, 109 B.R. 534 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1990) (chapter 7 debtor could not convert a previously converted case to a case under chapter 13); In re Carter, 84. B.R. 744 (D. Kan. 1988) (upholding bankruptcy court's denial of debtors' motion to convert chapter 7 case to a chapter 13 proceeding); In re Hanna, 100 B.R. 591 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989) (chapter 7 debtor barred from re-converting chapter 7 case to a case under chapter 13); In re Richardson, 43 B.R. 636 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1984) (chapter 7 debtors could not re-convert chapter 7 case to a case under chapter 13); In re Ghosh, 38 B.R. 600 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1984) (chapter 7 debtor could not re-convert case to chapter 13); 3 Lawrence P. King, Collier on Bankruptcy, Section 706.04 (15th ed. Revised 1995) (addressing conversion from chapter 7 to chapter 12 or 13, not conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7). --------