In Re Taub
2010 Bankr. LEXIS 2742, 439 B.R. 261, 53 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 181 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify as a petitioning creditor in an involuntary bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1), a creditor's claim cannot be the subject of a bona fide dispute as to either liability or amount. A bona fide dispute exists if there is an objective basis for either a factual or legal dispute as to the validity of the debt.
Facts:
- Simon Taub and Chana Taub, estranged spouses, were parties to a pending equitable distribution action in New York state court.
- A trial in the equitable distribution action was scheduled to commence on August 30, 2010.
- On August 30, 2010, Chana Taub, her sister Esther Newhouse, and a former tenant Katalin Pota (the 'Petitioners') filed an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Simon Taub.
- The Petitioners alleged claims against Simon Taub for $700,000 (Chana Taub), $500,000 (Newhouse), and $200,000 (Pota).
- Chana Taub's claim was based on allegedly embezzled rents, misappropriated property, and unpaid spousal support, all of which were issues in the state court action.
- Esther Newhouse's claim was based on funds she lent to her sister, Chana Taub, allegedly because Simon Taub failed to pay support.
- Katalin Pota's claim was based on alleged vandalism and theft of her property by Simon Taub, her former landlord.
- Simon Taub denied liability for all three claims, asserting that any amounts owed to Chana Taub were subject to set-offs and would be determined in the state court action, that he never agreed to repay Newhouse for loans to his wife, and that Pota actually owed him rent.
Procedural Posture:
- Chana Taub, Esther Newhouse, and Katalin Pota filed an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Simon Taub in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- In response, Simon Taub filed a motion by order to show cause seeking dismissal of the petition.
- The Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing on Simon Taub's motion to dismiss the case.
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 claim qualify as a non-disputed claim sufficient to support an involuntary bankruptcy petition under 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1) if it is subject to colorable factual or legal defenses, such as being part of an ongoing state court action or being assertable only by a bankruptcy trustee?
Opinions:
Majority - Craig, C.J.
No. A claim does not qualify to support an involuntary bankruptcy petition if it is subject to a bona fide dispute, which exists when there is an objective basis for a factual or legal dispute as to the debt's validity. The court's role is not to resolve the dispute, but to determine whether a legitimate one exists. Here, none of the petitioners hold a qualifying claim. A significant portion of Chana Taub's claim belongs to her own Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate and she lacks standing to assert it, creating a legal dispute as to liability. The remainder of her claim for support arrears is subject to a bona fide dispute because Simon Taub has asserted colorable defenses, such as payment and set-off rights, which are pending resolution in the state court equitable distribution action. Esther Newhouse's claim is disputed because there is no evidence Simon Taub ever agreed to be liable for loans she made to his wife. Katalin Pota's claim is also subject to a bona fide dispute as she provided no evidence to substantiate her allegations of theft, which Simon Taub denies. Because none of the three petitioning creditors hold a claim that is free from a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount, they are not eligible to commence an involuntary case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for initiating an involuntary bankruptcy, serving as a critical gatekeeper to prevent the misuse of the bankruptcy system as a litigation tactic in other disputes. The court's application of the objective 'bona fide dispute' test makes clear that complex, unresolved claims, particularly those already being litigated in state court (like a divorce), are ill-suited to form the basis of an involuntary petition. The opinion also provides an important clarification on standing, confirming that a debtor in their own bankruptcy case, for whom a trustee has been appointed, lacks the authority to independently assert claims belonging to their bankruptcy estate.
