Addison v. Seaver
60 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 299, 48 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 829, 540 F.3d 805 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor's conversion of nonexempt assets into exempt assets on the eve of bankruptcy, even for the express purpose of placing them beyond the reach of creditors, is not, without more, a fraudulent transfer; to defeat the exemption, there must be extrinsic evidence of intent to defraud.
Facts:
- Lance Addison, a part-owner of a cable company, had personally guaranteed some of his company’s debt.
- In early 2005, the business failed, and a creditor, JP Morgan Chase, began to pursue Addison on a $1.3 million personal guarantee.
- Around June 2005, Addison consulted with bankruptcy counsel to protect himself from Chase's collection efforts.
- On July 21, 2005, Addison used $4,000 of nonexempt funds from a brokerage account to establish a Roth IRA for himself.
- On October 14, 2005, Addison used $11,500 of nonexempt funds to make a voluntary principal payment on his home mortgage.
- Later that same day, October 14, 2005, Addison filed an individual Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.
- In May 2004, over a year prior to these events, Addison had established two Section 529 college tuition savings accounts for his children.
Procedural Posture:
- Lance Addison filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
- The bankruptcy Trustee filed an objection to Addison's claimed homestead and Roth IRA exemptions.
- The bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing and sustained the Trustee's objection, finding Addison had acted with intent to defraud creditors.
- The bankruptcy court reduced Addison's homestead exemption, denied the Roth IRA exemption, and ruled that two college savings accounts were nonexempt property of the bankruptcy estate.
- Addison, the appellant, appealed the exemption rulings to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).
- The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.
- Separately, the Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court to deny Addison's discharge.
- The bankruptcy court denied Addison's discharge, applying collateral estoppel from its prior ruling on the exemptions.
- Addison, the appellant, appealed the denial of discharge to the BAP, which transferred the consolidated appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a debtor's conversion of nonexempt funds into an exempt homestead and Roth IRA on the eve of bankruptcy constitute a transfer made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor, thereby defeating the exemptions, in the absence of extrinsic evidence of fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Circuit Judge.
No. A debtor's conversion of nonexempt assets into exempt property shortly before filing for bankruptcy does not, by itself, constitute a transfer with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. To invalidate such transfers, there must be extrinsic evidence of fraud. The court reasoned that longstanding precedent permits debtors to engage in pre-bankruptcy planning by converting nonexempt assets into exempt ones. The 'badges of fraud' relied upon by the lower court—such as the transfer being to an insider (himself), retaining control, being threatened with suit, and being insolvent—are inherent in most pre-bankruptcy conversions and do not constitute the necessary extrinsic evidence. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Sholdan II, where the debtor created a new homestead solely to shield assets, and Tveten, where the debtor converted a vast sum representing nearly his entire net worth. Addison's actions were modest in scale, he did not conceal the transfers, and he left other nonexempt assets for creditors. Because the finding of fraudulent intent for the exemptions was reversed, the denial of his bankruptcy discharge, which was based on the same finding, was also reversed. However, the court affirmed that the Section 529 college savings accounts were property of the estate because Addison retained legal ownership and control, and the federal law excluding them was not yet effective when he filed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the high bar for proving fraudulent intent in pre-bankruptcy exemption planning within the Eighth Circuit. By demanding 'extrinsic evidence' of fraud beyond the standard 'badges' that are often intrinsic to the act of conversion, the court provides greater certainty for debtors and their counsel. The ruling protects routine, transparent pre-bankruptcy planning, signaling that courts should focus on genuinely deceptive conduct, such as concealment or converting excessive assets, rather than the mere strategic use of statutory exemptions. This case serves as a crucial guidepost for distinguishing permissible pre-bankruptcy planning from fraudulent transfers intended to defeat creditors' rights.
Unlock the full brief for Addison v. Seaver