Opinion
Bankruptcy No. 01-30852
April 5, 2002
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the chapter 7 trustee's motion to amend the Order entered in this case by United States Bankruptcy Judge William A. Hill. of the District of North Dakota on February 20, 2002 ("the order at issue") — In the order at issue, Judge Hill overruled the trustee's objection to the wage exemption claim by Debtors Jeffrey A. Swanson and Sherry L. Swanson in insurance renewal commissions earned by Jeffrey Swanson. In the motion presently at bar, the trustee asserts that the order at issue did not decide all of the issues raised by the Swansons' claimed exemptions and the trustee's objections to those claimed exemptions as contemplated by Rule 4003(c), Bankr.R.Fed.P. Specifically, the trustee contends that the order at issue failed to address his argument that Jeffrey Swanson's insurance renewal commissions ("renewal commissions") arise from his status as an independent contractor and therefore are not "wages" within the meaning of the applicable exemption statute, N.D.C.C. § 28-22-18, even though they are "earnings" as defined under the North Dakota garnishment statutes, N.D.C.C. § 32-09.1-01(3). The trustee requests that the order at issue be amended to sustain the trustee's objection to the Swansons' claim of exemption in the renewal commissions.
The trustee's request has been recharacterized to state what the trustee presumably meant by requesting amendment of the order at issue "to overrul[e] the Debtor's Claim of Exemptions in `renewal commissions.'"
The Swansons do not dispute that the trustee raised this argument at the hearing on the matter on February 6, 2002, nor that the order at issue did not expressly address this particular argument. Rather, the Swansons dispute the viability of the substance of the trustee's motion, arguing that the wage exemption statute exempts all types of earnings defined in the garnishment statutes, including the renewal commissions.
The trustee's argument that the renewal commissions are not wages within the meaning of the applicable exemption statute is one of several arguments proffered by the trustee as a basis for his objection to the Swansons' claimed exemption in the renewal commissions. Irrespective of the number of arguments or bases raised by the parties, however, the order at issue involved one ultimate substantive question of law. That question was whether the Swansons could exempt the renewal commissions under the wage exemption in N.D.C.C. § 28-22-18, and the order at issue clearly resolved that question, stating
[T]he renewal commissions may be exempted under the wage exemption in N.D.C.C. § 28-22-18 to the extent determined under N.D.C.C. § 32-09.1-03, and under any other available exemptions provided in N.D.C.C. ch. 28-22.
Order at 6. Moreover, the court implicitly rejected the trustee's argument that the renewal commissions were business profits by finding that the commissions were "paid and payable for the pre bankruptcy services rendered by Jeffrey Swanson." Order at 3.
As a matter of clarity, the order at issue could have expressly acknowledged and disposed of the trustee's argument. See e.g., United States v. Wilson (In re Wilson), 269 BR. 829, 836 (Bankr. D.N.D. 2001) ("The Court has considered the (debtors' other arguments and deems them to be without merit."). Nevertheless, this Court is satisfied that the argument was raised and was necessarily resolved, albeit implicitly, against the trustee by the findings and holding in the order at issue.See In re McNichols, 255 B.R. 857, 878 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000) (in denying a debtor's motion to amend an opinion and order, the bankruptcy court stated: "The failure of the Court to specifically address each and every argument or point raised by the Debtor is due to their lack of persuasion in the mind of the Court, not to mere oversight. Because inclusion equals emphasis, the Court did not incorporate all arguments in its Opinions."); see also Semaan v. Allied Supermarkets. Inc. (In re Allied Supermarkets. Inc.), 951 F.2d 718, 726 (6th Cir. 1991) (court need not address every argument raised but should assure the reviewing court that it has distilled the facts from conflicts in the evidence).
To the extent that the trustee disagrees with the ruling in the order at issue and the underlying determinations on which it is based, he may seek consideration of the issue and his various arguments through the appellate process.
Accordingly, the trustee's motion to amend the Order entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge William A. Hill of the District of North Dakota on February 20, 2002 is in all respects DENIED.