Law v. Siegel
2014 U.S. LEXIS 1784, 188 L. Ed. 2d 146, 571 U.S. 415 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bankruptcy court may not exercise its statutory equitable powers or inherent sanctioning authority to contravene an explicit provision of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, a court cannot surcharge a debtor's statutorily exempt assets to pay administrative expenses, even if those expenses were incurred as a result of the debtor's fraudulent misconduct.
Facts:
- Stephen Law filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
- Law's primary asset was his house, on which he claimed a $75,000 homestead exemption under California law.
- To conceal additional equity in the property, Law created and recorded a fraudulent second deed of trust for $156,929 in favor of a fictitious entity, 'Lin's Mortgage & Associates.'
- This fictitious lien was intended to make it appear that there was no non-exempt equity in the house available for Law's creditors.
- The bankruptcy trustee, Alfred H. Siegel, engaged in five years of costly litigation to prove the lien was fraudulent.
- Siegel ultimately incurred more than $500,000 in attorney's fees to overcome Law's fraudulent conduct and sell the house for the benefit of creditors.
Procedural Posture:
- The bankruptcy trustee, Alfred H. Siegel, filed a motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California to surcharge Stephen Law's $75,000 homestead exemption.
- The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion, ordering the exempt funds be used to defray attorney's fees incurred due to Law's fraud.
- Law appealed the surcharge order to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).
- The BAP affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision.
- Law appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BAP's decision in a per curiam opinion.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
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 the Bankruptcy Code permit a court to use its equitable powers to impose a 'surcharge' on a debtor's exempt assets to pay for administrative expenses incurred as a result of the debtor's misconduct, when the Code's text explicitly immunizes such assets from liability for administrative expenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A bankruptcy court may not surcharge a debtor's exempt assets to pay for administrative expenses because such an action violates an express provision of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 522(k) of the Code states that exempt property is 'not liable for payment of any administrative expense.' The trustee's attorney's fees are administrative expenses as defined by the Code. While bankruptcy courts possess broad equitable powers under § 105(a) and inherent sanctioning authority, these general powers cannot be used to override specific statutory mandates. The Code's 'meticulous... enumeration of exemptions and exceptions' confirms that courts are not authorized to create additional exceptions based on general equitable principles or a debtor's misconduct. The proper remedies for such misconduct are other sanctions expressly authorized by the Code, such as denying the debtor a discharge or imposing monetary sanctions, not contravening the specific protections afforded to exempt property.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a textualist approach to the Bankruptcy Code, establishing that its specific provisions cannot be overridden by a court's general equitable powers, even in the face of egregious debtor misconduct. It clarifies that the detailed statutory scheme of exemptions and exceptions created by Congress is exhaustive and not subject to judicial alteration for equitable reasons. The ruling limits the direct financial remedies available to trustees against a debtor's protected assets, forcing them to rely on other, sometimes less direct, statutory sanctions to address fraud. This protects the debtor's 'fresh start' principle concerning exempt property but can leave the bankruptcy estate (and thus creditors) to bear the costs of uncovering fraud.
