Fokkena v. Tripp (In Re Tripp)
224 B.R. 95, 40 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1098, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1108 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor's intentional concealment of property or the making of a false oath regarding property interests on bankruptcy schedules, even if the property is illegal or has no apparent value to the estate, constitutes grounds for denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(4)(A).
Facts:
- On December 22, 1997, Iowa State Patrol officers stopped Debtor George Tripp while he was driving on a highway.
- George Tripp had 1/4 ounce of marijuana in his pocket and voluntarily stated he possessed additional marijuana at his residence.
- Officers executed a search warrant for the Tripps' residence and discovered 14 to 15 pounds of marijuana.
- Debtor Rose Tripp stated to law officers at the scene that she knew her husband had been growing marijuana on their property for two or three years.
- The Tripps did not disclose their ownership of the marijuana on their bankruptcy schedules, answering 'None' to questions requiring disclosure of 'Crops — growing or harvested' and 'Other personal property of any kind.'
Procedural Posture:
- George and Rose Tripp (Debtors) filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on November 6, 1997.
- Habbo Fokkena, the Chapter 7 Trustee, filed an adversary complaint against the Debtors in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, requesting the denial of their discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2) and 727(a)(4).
- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa held a hearing for Oral Arguments on July 15, 1998, on the Trustee's complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a debtor's intentional failure to disclose illegal property, such as marijuana, on bankruptcy schedules constitute concealment of property or a false oath that is material to the bankruptcy case, thereby warranting denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(4)(A)? 2. Does the denial of a debtor's discharge for failure to disclose illegal property violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy?
Opinions:
Majority - Paul J. Kilburg
1. Yes, a debtor's intentional failure to disclose illegal property, even if perceived as valueless to the estate, constitutes both concealment of property and a false oath material to the bankruptcy case, warranting denial of discharge. The court found that George and Rose Tripp concealed their property, the marijuana, from the Trustee and knowingly made false statements under oath by failing to disclose it on their schedules. Their guilty pleas to criminal charges established proof of ownership. The court concluded the Tripps had fraudulent intent, motivated by a desire to avoid criminal prosecution, tax consequences, and to keep the value of the drugs for themselves. Although no direct financial benefit to creditors from disclosure was shown, such a showing is not necessary for a finding of fraudulent intent, as debtors have an 'uncompromising duty to disclose whatever ownership interests are held in property.' The false statements were material because they related to the discovery of the Tripps' assets and the existence of their property, consistent with the Mertz v. Rott standard. The fact that marijuana is an illegal substance with no value to the Trustee is not determinative of materiality; debtors are not permitted to decide what is material. The court noted that illegal assets could have tax implications (e.g., state drug tax), impacting the estate, and it is the prerogative of the Court, Trustee, and creditors to evaluate assets. 2. No, denying the Tripps' discharge does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. The court concluded that denial of discharge is not an enhanced penalty for their criminal sentences. Debtors have no constitutional right to receive a discharge, which is a privilege reserved for the 'honest but unfortunate debtor.' Bankruptcy proceedings are civil in nature, and denial of discharge results in neither imprisonment nor a monetary penalty, thus not constituting a second punishment for their crimes.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the uncompromising duty of debtors to make full and complete disclosure of all property interests in bankruptcy, irrespective of the property's legality or perceived monetary value to the estate. It establishes that a debtor's self-created dilemma (between potential criminal prosecution and the duty of disclosure) does not excuse the obligation to provide honest and comprehensive schedules. The ruling underscores the importance of debtor integrity for the proper functioning and public trust in the bankruptcy system, ensuring that the Trustee and creditors, not the debtor, determine the materiality and impact of assets on the estate.
