Padgett Law Group
Menu

PLG NEWS

News + updates + recent press

Categories

All
Arkansas
Bankruptcy
Case Law
Closings
Compliance
Evictions
FDCPA
FHA
Florida
Foreclosure
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Legislative
Michigan
Moratoriums
Ohio
PANDIFFERENT
Pennsylvania
Personnel
Real Estate
Regulatory
REO
Tennessee
Texas
Title
Trending Cases

Archives

January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017

Analyzing the Supreme Court’s Decision in City of Chicago v. Fulton

1/19/2021

 
On January 14, 2021, the United States Supreme Court handed down their decision in City of Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106 (Jan. 14, 2021). The question before the Court was whether an entity violates §362(a)(3) by retaining possession of a debtor’s property after a bankruptcy petition is filed. The Court held that mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. 
​

Until this decision, the majority position held by the Second, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits was that the automatic stay prohibited a creditor’s passive retention of property seized before a bankruptcy case began.  Weber v. SEFCU (In re Weber), 719 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2013); Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 566 F.3d 699  (7th Cir. 2009), Knaus v. Concordia Lumber Co. (In re Knaus), 889 F.2d 773, 775 (8th Cir. 1989); California Emp’t Dev. Dep’t v. Taxel (In re Del Mission Ltd.), 98 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1996); Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Rozier (In re Rozier), 376 F.3d 1323, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004). 
In contrast, the minority view sustained by the Third, Tenth and D.C. Circuits, had held that a creditor did not violate the automatic stay by failing to return property seized pre-bankruptcy, and that questions concerning a creditor’s obligations to surrender such assets were instead governed exclusively by Section 542(a).  In re Denby-Peterson, 941 F.3d 115, 125-126  (3d Cir. 2019); WD Equip., LLC v. Cowen (In re Cowen), 849 F.3d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 2017); United States v. Inslaw, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467, 1474 (D.C. Cir. 1991) . 
The facts of the case are rather simple. The City of Chicago impounded respondent’s vehicle for failure to pay fines for motor vehicle infractions. Each respondent filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and requested that the City return his or her vehicle. The argument was that the mere retention of the vehicles, which is considered property of the bankruptcy estate, violated §362(a)(3) which prohibits “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.” 

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito engaged in a textual analysis by finding that taken together, the most natural reading of the terms “stay”, “act” and “exercise control” is that §362(a)(3) prohibits affirmative acts that would disturb the status quo of the estate property as of the time when  the bankruptcy was filed. The Court also analyzed the language in Section 542(a) which states: “[A]n entity, other than a custodian, in possession, custody, or control, during the case, of property that the trustee may use, sell, or lease under section 363 of this title, or that the debtor may exempt under section 522 of this title, shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or the value of such property, unless such property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate.” 

The Court found that reading §362(a)(3) to cover retention would create two serious problems. First, it would render the central command of §542(a) largely superfluous. Second, it would render the commands of §362(a)(3) and §542 contradictory. Instead, the Court found the better account of the two provisions is that §362(a)(3) prohibits collection efforts outside the bankruptcy proceeding that would change the status quo, while §542(a) works within the bankruptcy process to draw far-flung estate property back into the hands of the debtor or trustee. Furthermore, the majority found that the 1984 amendment, which added the phrase regarding exercise of control, simply extended the stay to acts that would change the status quo with respect to intangible property and acts that would change the status quo with respect to tangible property without “obtaining” such property. 

Justice Sotomayor, who issued a concurring opinion, engaged in a more pragmatic approach. She stated that regardless of whether the City’s policy of refusing to return impounded vehicles satisfies the letter of the Code, it hardly comports with its spirit. As an example she stated that after a driver is assessed a fine and is unable to pay, the balance balloons and late fees accrue. The driver is unable to get to work in order to fund the Chapter 13 plan. 

Interestingly, Justice Sotomayor did state that the Court has not decided whether and when §362(a)’s other provisions may require a creditor to return a debtor’s property. She found that any gap in this Court’s ruling should be addressed by rule drafters and policymakers. She urged Congress to offer a statutory fix. 

Comments are closed.
    PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
    ​The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog.  Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 
HOME
ABOUT
PRACTICE AREAS
CAREERS
CONTACT US
Picture
Picture

Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • MISSISSIPPI
    • ALABAMA
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
    • LOSS MITIGATION
  • FORECLOSURE SALES
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • MISSISSIPPI
    • ALABAMA
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
    • LOSS MITIGATION
  • FORECLOSURE SALES
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US