Loeffler – Avoidance Actions Left to Sound Discretion of Trustee

By Michael Wennerlund, Law Clerk at The White Law Firm, Nashville, TN

Author: Michael Wennerlund

In re Loeffler, 2011 WL 6736066 (Bankr.D.Colo, Dec. 21, 2011) (Tallman)

In order to satisfy the requirements of the “best interest of creditors” test of §1325(a)(4), Debtor’s plan needs to do no more than provide that the net proceeds from any potential recoveries under §§ 544, 547, and 548, must be paid out to creditors.  The decision of whether to pursue such recoveries rests solely within the sound discretion of the Trustee.  Except for actions to avoid the transfer of exempt property under § 522(h), avoidance actions are not under the control of the debtor.

Case Summary

Debtor, as of April 1, 2007, was the owner of an entity that owned and operated a Japanese restaurant (“Entity”).  On or around this same day, Debtor transferred her stock in Entity to her daughter, with consideration of $300,000.00 payable without interest at a rate of $4,000.00 per month until fully paid.  On April 15, 2007, Creditor (Wells Fargo) obtained a judgment against Debtor in the amount of $174,763.29.  The judgment constituted a lien on Debtor’s real property on which Debtor’s residence was located.  Just prior to the petition date, approximately $150,000 remained owing to the Debtor with respect to the initial sale of the stock in the Entity.  On the eve of bankruptcy filing, the Debtor, Entity, and Debtor’s daughter signed an amendment to the original agreement in November 2010 regarding the stock sale in the Entity.  The amendment made vague references to the Entity’s financial difficulties and it forgave the remaining debt to the Debtor.  In return, the Entity employed the Debtor as a manager at the rate of $3,000.00 per month.

Upon the second motion to confirm Debtor’s plan, Creditor made, inter alia, two arguments: (1) Debtor failed to satisfy the “best interest of creditors” test under §1325(a)(4) by failing to fully account for the estate’s $150,000.00 fraudulent conveyance action and to provide payment of that amount to creditors under her plan; and (2) Debtor failed to satisfy the “best interest of creditors” test by failing to characterize the original stock sale agreement as a fraudulent transfer.

In respect to both of Creditor’s arguments, the bankruptcy court held that in order to satisfy the requirements of the best interests test, Debtor’s plan must provide that any net recovery on the fraudulent conveyance action must be distributed to creditors; however, satisfaction of the best interests test does not require the Debtor herself to personally fund distribution to creditors of the hypothetical value of any such recovery.  A debtor in a chapter 13 case, unlike a debtor-in-possession in chapter 11, exercises no control over avoidance actions of the kind described in §§ 544, 547, and 548.  After performing some comparative statutory interpretation between §1303, §1107, and §1203, the court concluded that with the absence of debtor authority in §1303 to pursue recoveries under §§ 544, 547, or 548, Congress did not intend to give chapter 13 debtors those powers.

In distinguishing between causes of action belonging to the debtor prior to the petition date and trustee avoidance actions, the court held that an avoidance action under the Code only arises upon the filing of a bankruptcy estate—i.e., to the extent that a recovery action has any value, it is value created by the filing of the bankruptcy case.  Under § 541(a)(3), property that is the subject of a trustee recovery under §§ 544, 547, or 548 only becomes property of the estate if and when the trustee recovers it: “[N]o matter how compelling the case appears, a transfer is not a fraudulent conveyance until it is adjudicated as such.  Proceeds of such avoidance actions do not become estate property until actually recovered by the trustee.”

The court denied confirmation to Debtor’s plan because it failed to adequately deal with the two potential avoidance actions: “Debtor’s plan does not provide for the eventuality of an action to recovery a fraudulent conveyance.  Whether or not to pursue such an action is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trustee.  The Debtor may not limit that discretion by a provision of her plan but, by the same token, she need not promise a payout over which she exerts no control.”

What this Case Means to Debtor’s Counsel

Simply put, as long as Debtor’s Counsel proposes a plan in good faith (under §1325(a)(3)) which provides that any recovery received upon an avoidance action—in this case, a fraudulent conveyance action—shall be paid out to the creditors of the estate, the plan should be confirmed absent any other deficiencies that may arise in the plan.  As Loeffler made abundantly clear, the Debtor is under no duty to personally fund distribution to creditors of the hypothetical value of any such recovery.  Such distribution, not surprisingly, is completely within the purview of the plan, and only when the Trustee chooses to pursue such action and recovers for the estate.

What this Case Means to Creditors

Loeffler places creditors in what would appear to be between a rock and a hard place.  Debtors have no affirmative duty to pursue a fraudulent conveyance action, and circuits are split on the question of whether a chapter 13 debtor even has the authority to pursue such recoveries.  On the other hand, the decision of whether to pursue such action rests within “the sound discretion” of the Trustee.  Thus, creditors appear to have no independent authority to pursue such actions to potentially maximize distribution under any give plan.  However, there is recent authority that a court may grant a creditor “derivative standing” to pursue an avoidance action that a trustee declines to pursue within the context of chapter 7 proceedings.  See, e.g., Hyundai Translead, Inc. v. Jackson Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc. (In re Trailer Source, Inc.), 555 F.3d 231 (6th Cir. 2009).  Whether such “derivative standing” exists in the context of a chapter 13 proceeding is yet to be adjudicated.  Nevertheless, the main holding of this case—that the decision to pursue avoidance actions that would potentially increase the total amount of estate assets to distribute to creditors rests solely within the “sound discretion” of the Trustee—is mitigated by the fact that Trustees more than likely are not going to deliberately pass up a good opportunity to increase estate assets.  However, creditors need to be aware that the Trustee is not under an absolute duty to pursue such actions when they present themselves.

What this Case Means to Trustees

As Loeffler plainly holds, the decision of “[w]hether or not to pursue [avoidance actions] is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trustee.”  While it would certainly be advantageous for any trustee to pursue avoidance actions likely to net a recovery for the estate, they are not under any affirmative obligation to do so.  While facially this may seem like a harsh result for creditors, the ability and discretion of a chapter 13 trustee to evaluate any potential avoidance actions without external pressures is necessary to the fluid operation of chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.  Without such discretion, the courts more than likely would be clogged—needlessly so, more often than not—with motions/adversarial proceedings attempting to add as many assets as possible to the estate before confirmation notwithstanding the relative utility in doing so.  Giving the trustee the sole discretion in such matters removes this possibility.

Michael N. Wennerlund is a May 2012 graduate of The Nashville School of Law.  He was the winner of the 2010-2011 NACTT National Law School Writing Competition.  When not searching for future employment in the legal field, he is studying for the July 2012 bar exam.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

May 1, 2022
Traps and grey areas abound when one spouse files bankruptcy during or after a divorce. Inattention by the non-filing spouse can result in the bankruptcy discharge of spousal claims that might actually be nondischargeable. One of those traps involves the differing treatment in bankruptcy of debts to a former spouse incurred in the course of a divorce (Bankruptcy Code §523(a)15))...
November 17, 2019
11/14/19, the IRS issued guidance for taxpayers with certain deductible expenses to reflect changes resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Revenue Procedure 2019-46, posted today on IRS.gov, updates the rules for using the optional standard mileage rates in computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving expense purposes. The guidance also...
November 1, 2020
By James J. Robinson, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Alabama Under what circumstances should the trustee object to claims (assuming a purpose would be served under § 707(a)(5))? Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). This case centered around the debtor’s argument that a creditor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it...
May 5, 2019
The CFPB (Bureau), May 2, 2019, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposes to raise the coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rules. The NPRM would provide relief to smaller lenders from HMDA’s data reporting requirements, and would clarify partial exemptions...
August 25, 2019
Employers who provide paid family and medical leave to their employees might qualify for a credit that can reduce the taxes they owe. It’s called the employer credit for family and medical leave. Here are some facts about the credit to help employers find out if they might be able to claim it. To be eligible, an employer must: Have...
February 2, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Punitive damages reduced for FDCPA and RESPA violations. The mortgage servicer violated FDCPA, RESPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by treating account as delinquent after Chapter 13 debtor had cured arrears, brought account current and obtained discharge. The servicer mistakenly marked the Chapter 13 case as dismissed rather...
October 16, 2022
The facts in In re DeWitt, 2022 WL 4588320 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022), are a bit “unusual”. Debtor filed Chapter 13 to reinstate her mortgage. The mortgage was “non-escrowed” and Debtor was required to pay property taxes directly. Surprisingly, she did not pay her property taxes. The first time, the Lender paid the property taxes but decided not to pursue...
March 24, 2019
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Discharge - Section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) does not include “loan.” Denying Navient’s motion to dismiss debtors’ complaint, reviewing the split of authority on whether § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii)’s “educational benefit” included loans, and finding no controlling authority in the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded that Congress made a distinction between “loan” in § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) and...
April 18, 2021
Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX A 11 U.S.C. § 1328 Discharge (Text added by CAA, effective: December 27, 2020 and subject to one-year sunset, appears in italics.) (Mandatory and precatory directions to the court, critical to the statutory analysis in In re Ritter, appears in bold.) (a) Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion...
February 23, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction This series has focused on the four bankruptcy-related bills that were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), became effective February 19, 2020. It appears in its entirety in Appendix B to this...

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.


These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: