Reliable Electric Co., Inc. v. Olson Construction Company
726 F.2d 620 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discharge of a creditor's claim under a Chapter 11 reorganization plan without providing the creditor with reasonable notice of the confirmation hearing violates the creditor's Fifth Amendment due process rights. A creditor's general awareness of the bankruptcy proceeding does not excuse the debtor's duty to provide formal notice of critical stages.
Facts:
- Between June and December 1979, Reliable Electric Company (Reliable) served as the electrical subcontractor for Olson Construction Company (Olson), the general contractor on a project.
- On December 26, 1979, Reliable withdrew from the project, alleging that Olson had breached the subcontract.
- On January 30, 1980, Reliable filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but listed Olson only under 'Accounts Receivable' on its schedules, not as a 'Creditor'.
- Sometime between January and November 1980, Reliable’s attorney telephoned Olson’s attorney and informed him generally that Reliable had initiated Chapter 11 proceedings.
- On November 9, 1980, Reliable sued Olson in state court for breach of the subcontract.
- On December 28, 1980, Olson filed a counterclaim against Reliable for damages stemming from Reliable's alleged prepetition breach, formally putting Reliable on notice of its claim.
- Reliable never sent Olson any formal notices regarding the bankruptcy plan, the time for filing claims, or the date of the confirmation hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Reliable Electric Company filed a petition for voluntary Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado.
- The bankruptcy court confirmed Reliable's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization.
- In a separate but related proceeding, the bankruptcy court entered a judgment of $10,378.00 in favor of Olson on its counterclaim against Reliable.
- Reliable filed motions in the bankruptcy court seeking to have Olson's judgment declared a prepetition debt subject to discharge under the confirmed plan.
- The bankruptcy court denied Reliable's motions, holding that Olson's claim was not subject to the plan due to lack of notice.
- Reliable appealed the bankruptcy court's order to the U.S. District Court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.
- Reliable, as the appellant, now appeals the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Olson is the appellee.
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 failure to provide a known potential creditor with formal notice of a bankruptcy confirmation hearing violate the creditor's due process rights, thereby preventing the discharge of that creditor's claim under the confirmed reorganization plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrett
Yes, the failure to provide formal notice violates the creditor's due process rights, and the claim is therefore not discharged. The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of an action and give them an opportunity to present objections. Notwithstanding the broad discharge language of 11 U.S.C. § 1141, a creditor's claim cannot be extinguished without this constitutionally required notice. Citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., the court emphasized that a creditor with general knowledge of a bankruptcy proceeding has no duty to inquire about court actions and has a 'right to assume' they will receive all statutorily required notices. Once Olson filed its counterclaim, Reliable was aware of Olson's status as a potential creditor and had a duty to provide formal notice of the confirmation hearing. Because Reliable failed to do so, Olson was deprived of the opportunity to be heard, and its claim cannot be bound by the confirmed plan.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that the constitutional due process requirement of notice trumps the broad statutory discharge provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. It clarifies that a debtor's 'fresh start' is not absolute and is conditioned upon fulfilling fundamental procedural obligations to its creditors. The ruling places a clear burden on debtors to provide formal notice to all known or reasonably ascertainable creditors, confirming that a creditor's informal or general awareness of a bankruptcy case is insufficient to satisfy due process. This strengthens the position of creditors who might otherwise have their claims extinguished without a meaningful opportunity to participate in the reorganization process.
