Mast v. Borgess Medical Center (In re Mast)

26 Citing cases

  1. In re Redditt

    146 B.R. 693 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that chapter 13 debtor does not have the avoidance powers conferred on trustees pursuant to § 544

    By the statute's own terms, only the trustee has standing to exercise the strong-arm avoidance powers . . . Legislative history, especially floor comments, may augment but may not amend the statute's straightforward language. Section 1303 simply does not confer standing on the debtor to pursue avoidance actions. As the bankruptcy court pointed out In re Mast [ 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1987)], there does not exist any statutory authority for a Chapter 13 debtor to utilize avoidance powers granted to the trustee. . . . If Congress intended to grant avoidance powers to a Chapter 13 debtor, it could have explicitly done so . . .In re Mast, 79 B.R. at 982, n. 3.

  2. In re Meadows

    396 B.R. 485 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that where the bank honored Debtor's check postpetition, "there was a transfer of property of the estate, and the funds were no longer estate property"

    Bankruptcy court decisions in this circuit have long held that a chapter 13 debtor lacks standing to pursue avoidance and recovery of transfers; only the trustee normally possesses the requisite standing. Hill v. Fidelity Fin. Servs. (In re Hill), 152 B.R. 204 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1993); Mast v. Borgess Med. Ctr. (In re Mast), 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.1987). However, it is properly recognized that, under certain circumstances, the Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to avoid transfers under § 522(g)(1) and (h).

  3. Matter of Pilgreen

    161 B.R. 552 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1989)   Cited 10 times
    Observing that the language of the Bankruptcy Code does not provide Chapter 13 debtors with avoidance powers of a trustee

    11 U.S.C.A. § 547(b) (West 1979 Supp. 1989). 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1987). The Court has carefully reviewed all provisions contained in Chapter 13 and there does not exist any statutory authority for a Chapter 13 debtor to utilize avoidance powers granted to the trustee, including those powers listed in Sections 544, 545, 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. If Congress intended to grant avoidance powers to a Chapter 13 debtor, it could have explicitly done so.

  4. In re Bruce

    96 B.R. 717 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1989)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that unrecorded waivers are enforceable except against third parties

    1986); In re Weaver, 69 B.R. 554 (Bankr.W.D.Ky. 1987) (holding in general that the debtor can employ the avoidance powers) with In re Carter, 2 B.R. 321 (Bankr.D.Colo. 1980); In re Walls, 17 B.R. 701 (Bankr.S.D.W.V. 1982); In re Driscoll, 57 B.R. 322 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1986); In re Mast, 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1987) (holding in general that the debtor in Chapter 13 lacks standing to bring avoidance actions). ANALYSIS

  5. Matter of Hamilton

    125 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that facts of which a hypothetical purchaser would have implied notice under state law may prevent the use of the § 544 strong-arm powers

    See In re Redditt, 146 B.R. 693, 696-701 (Bankr.S.D.Miss. 1992); In re Henderson, 133 B.R. 813, 816-17 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1991); In re Tillery, 124 B.R. 127 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991); In re Coan, 134 B.R. 670 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991); In re Driver, 133 B.R. 476 (Bankr.S.D.Ind. 1991); Bruce v. Republicbank-South Austin (In re Bruce), 96 B.R. 717, 720-23 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1989); In re Mast, 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1987). These courts have acknowledged the "realities" of Chapter 13 bankruptcies and the trustees' limited role, the factors emphasized by earlier courts.

  6. Thacker v. United Companies Lending Corporation

    Civil Action No. 5:99CV-43-R (W.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2000)

    In re Carter, 2 B.R. 321 (Bankr. C. Colo. 1980); In re Walls, 17 B.R. 701 (Bankr.S.D.W. Va. 1982); In re Driscoll, 57 B.R. 322 (Bankr.W.D.Wisc. 1986); In re Mast, 70 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1987); In re Bruce, 96 B.R. 717 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1989). The Court continues to be unpersuaded by this line of cases.

  7. Thacker v. United Companies Lending Corp.

    256 B.R. 724 (W.D. Ky. 2000)   Cited 21 times
    In Thacker the district court interpreted the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in State Street Bank that an unrecordable instrument does not constitute constructive notice to also mean that the unrecordable instrument does not constitute inquiry notice because the distinction between the two would be illusory.

    In re Carter, 2 B.R. 321 (Bankr.D.Colo. 1980); In re Walls, 17 B.R. 701 (Bankr. S.D.W.Va. 1982); In re Driscoll, 57 B.R. 322 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1986); In re Mast, 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1987); In re Bruce, 96 B.R. 717 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1989). The Court continues to be unpersuaded by this line of cases.

  8. Hollar v. U.S.

    174 B.R. 198 (M.D.N.C. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that "there is no statutory authority in Chapter 13 which grants a Chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustee's . . . avoidance power"

    This Court agrees with those courts which have held that there is no statutory authority in Chapter 13 which grants a Chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustee's section 548 avoidance power. See, In re Driscoll, 57 B.R. 322 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1986) (Section 1303 does not grant avoidance powers of Chapter 5 to a Chapter 13 debtor, legislative history does not imply that these powers are concurrently held); In re Mast, 79 B.R. 981 (Bankr. W.D.Mich. 1987) (there is no statutory authority for a Chapter 13 debtor to use the Chapter 5 avoidance powers); In re Perry, 90 B.R. 565 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1988) (section 522(h) provides a Chapter 13 debtor's only standing with respect to trustee's avoidance powers); In re Jardine, 120 B.R. 559 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1990) (debtors hold some power concurrently with trustee but the code does not allow a debtor to exercise powers without the cooperation of trustee except in section 522); In re Tillery, 124 B.R. 127 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991) (section 1303 provides the exclusive grant of trustee power to a Chapter 13 debtor); In re Henderson, 133 B.R. 813 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1991) (section 1303 does not provide avoidance power and section 522(h) is limited by 522(c)(2)(B) where a tax lien is involved); In re Redditt, 146 B.R. 693 (Bankr.S.D.Miss. 1992) (debtor does not possess power to avoid transactions except to the extent granted under section 522(h)); In re Colandrea, 17 B.R. 568 (Bankr.D.Md. 1982) (Chapter 13 debtor

  9. Wright v. Trystone Capital Assets, LLC (In re Wright)

    649 B.R. 625 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that Congress has explicitly provided for chapter 11 debtors-in-possession to have all the powers of a trustee, including avoiding powers

    to chapter 13 debtors does violence to the balance of rights among debtors, trustees and creditors that has been carefully constructed in the statute."); In re Ryker , 315 B.R. 664, 674 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2004) (finding unpersuasive the reasoning given to allow chapter 13 debtors to avoid transfers other than through section 522(h), adding that "a reading of the statute in which only the Chapter 13 trustee has standing to prosecute avoidance actions is not inconsistent with the other rights and responsibilities of a Chapter 13 debtor, and is no real impediment to proposing or performing a Chapter 13 plan."); In re Steck , 298 B.R. at 248 (in declining to read section 1303 "in a manner ... inconsistent with its plain language," stating " ‘the bankruptcy court cannot waive or modify Bankruptcy Code requirements that are plain and unambiguous because it agrees with the policy underlying the debtor's arguments.’ ") (quoting In re Columbia Gas Systems, Inc. , 33 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 1994) ); Matter of Mast , 79 B.R. 981, 982 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1987) (rejecting the reasoning of courts using the " ‘realities of bankruptcy practice’ to justify a strained interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code"). This court also rejects those holdings as ignoring the plain language of the statute.

  10. Wright v. Trystone Capital Assets, LLC (In re Wright)

    No. 20-12415-ABA (Bankr. D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2023)

    ; In re Steck, 298 B.R. at 248 (in declining to read section 1303 "in a manner . . . inconsistent with its plain language," stating "'the bankruptcy court cannot waive or modify Bankruptcy Code requirements that are plain and unambiguous because it agrees with the policy underlying the debtor's arguments.'") (quoting In re Columbia Gas Systems, Inc., 33 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 1994)); Matter of Mast, 79 B.R. 981, 982 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1987) (rejecting the reasoning of courts using the "'realities of bankruptcy practice' to justify a strained interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code"). This court also rejects those holdings as ignoring the plain language of the statute.