From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Langenkamp v. Culp

U.S.
Nov 13, 1990
498 U.S. 42 (1990)

Summary

holding that a bankruptcy court could decide a preferential-transfer claim when the creditor filed a claim because then “the ensuing preference action by the trustee become integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship”

Summary of this case from JWL Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Solby+Westbrae Partners

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No. 90-93

Decided November 13, 1990

Respondents held thrift and passbook savings certificates, which were issued by debtor financial institutions and represented debtors' promise to repay moneys respondents had invested. Within the 90-day period before debtors filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions, respondents redeemed some of the certificates. They became debtors' creditors when they filed proofs of claims against the bankruptcy estates. Subsequently, petitioner trustee instituted adversary proceedings to recover, as avoidable preferences, the payments which respondents had received. After a bench trial, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the payments were avoidable preferences, and the District Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals, relying on Grandfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, and Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, reversed, ruling that respondents were entitled to a jury trial in the preference action.

Held: Respondents were not entitled to a jury trial. By filing claims against the bankruptcy estate, respondents triggered the process of "allowance and disallowance of claims," thereby subjecting themselves to the Bankruptcy Court's equitable power. Grandfinanciera, 492 U.S., at 58-59, and n. 14. Thus, the trustee's preference action became an integral part of the claims-allowance process, which is triable only in equity. As such, there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In contrast, a party who does not submit a claim against the estate is entitled to a jury trial as a preference defendant, since the trustee could recover the transfers only by filing what amounts to a legal action. Ibid. Accordingly, "a creditor's right to a jury trial on a bankruptcy trustee's preference claim depends upon whether the creditor has submitted a claim against the estate," id., at 58, a distinction overlooked by the Court of Appeals.

Certiorari granted; 897 F.2d 1041, reversed and remanded.


This case presents the question whether creditors who submit a claim against a bankruptcy estate and are then sued by the trustee in bankruptcy to recover allegedly preferential monetary transfers are entitled to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. This action was brought by petitioner Langenkamp, successor trustee to Republic Trust Savings Company and Republic Financial Corporation (collectively debtors). Debtors were uninsured, nonbank financial institutions doing business in Oklahoma. Debtors filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions on September 24, 1984. At the time of the bankruptcy filings, respondents held thrift and passbook savings certificates issued by the debtors, which represented the debtors' promise to repay moneys the respondents had invested.

Within the 90-day period immediately preceding debtors' Chapter 11 filing, respondents redeemed some, but not all, of the debtors' certificates which they held. Thus, upon the bankruptcy filing, respondents became creditors of the now-bankrupt corporations. Respondents timely filed proofs of claim against the bankruptcy estates. Approximately one year after the bankruptcy filing, the trustee instituted adversary proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) to recover, as avoidable preferences, the payments which respondents had received immediately prior to the September 24 filing. A bench trial was held, and the Bankruptcy Court found that the money received by respondents did in fact constitute avoidable preferences. In Re Republic Trust Savings Co., No. 84C-01461, Adversary No. 85-0337 (ND Okla., June 26, 1987), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-64. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma affirmed. Republic Financial Corp. v. Langenkamp, Nos. 87-C-616-C, 87-C-618-C, 87-C-619-C (June 30, 1988), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-67. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the District Court's judgment on three grounds, but reversed on the issue of the holders' entitlement to a jury trial on the trustee's preference claims. In re Republic Trust Savings Co., 897 F.2d 1041 (1990). Relying on our decisions in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), and Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966), the Tenth Circuit correctly held that those appellants that did not have or file claims against the debtors' estates undoubtedly [were] entitled to a jury trial on the issue whether the payments they received from the debtors within ninety days of the latter's bankruptcy constitute[d] avoidable preferences. 897 F.2d, at 1046. The Court of Appeals went further, however, concluding:

"[A]lthough some of the appellants did file claims against the estates because they continued to have monies invested in the debtors at the time of bankruptcy, . . . we believe they likewise are entitled to a jury trial under the rationale of Granfinanciera and Katchen. Despite these appellants' claims, the trustee's actions to avoid the transfers, consolidated by the bankruptcy court, were plenary rather than a part of the bankruptcy' court's summary proceedings involving the `process of allowance and disallowance of claims.'" Id., at 1046-1047.

Petitioner contends that the Tenth Circuit erred in holding that those creditors of the debtors who had filed claims against the estate were entitled to a jury trial. We agree.

In Granfinanciera, we recognized that, by filing a claim against a bankruptcy estate, the creditor triggers the process of "allowance and disallowance of claims," thereby subjecting himself to the bankruptcy court's equitable power. 492 U.S., at 58-59, and n. 14 (citing Katchen, supra, at 336). If the creditor is met, in turn, with a preference action from the trustee, that action becomes part of the claims-allowance process which is triable only in equity. Ibid. In other words, the creditor's claim and the ensuing preference action by the trustee become integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship through the bankruptcy court's equity jurisdiction. Granfinanciera, supra, at 57-58. As such, there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. If a party does not submit a claim against the bankruptcy estate, however, the trustee can recover allegedly preferential transfers only by filing what amounts to a legal action to recover a monetary transfer. In those circumstances, the preference defendant is entitled to a jury trial. 492 U.S., at 58-59.

Accordingly, "a creditor's right to a jury trial on a bankruptcy trustee's preference claim depends upon whether the creditor has submitted a claim against the estate." Id., at 58. Respondents filed claims against the bankruptcy estate, thereby bringing themselves within the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Consequently, they were not entitled to a jury trial on the trustee's preference action. The decision by the Court of Appeals overlooked the clear distinction which our cases have drawn and in so doing created a conflict among the circuits on this issue. For this reason we grant the petition for certiorari, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Langenkamp v. Culp

U.S.
Nov 13, 1990
498 U.S. 42 (1990)

holding that a bankruptcy court could decide a preferential-transfer claim when the creditor filed a claim because then “the ensuing preference action by the trustee become integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship”

Summary of this case from JWL Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Solby+Westbrae Partners

holding that Creditors submit themselves to the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction by submitting a proof of claim

Summary of this case from In re WR Grace & Co.

holding that when a creditor files a claim against the bankruptcy estate, he subjects himself to the bankruptcy court's equitable jurisdiction and has no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial

Summary of this case from Younge v. Tribune Media Co. (In re Tribune Media Co.)

holding that "a creditor's right to a jury trial . . . depends upon whether the creditor has submitted a claim against the estate" and that creditors who submit claims "subject themselves to the bankruptcy court's equitable power" and have no right to a jury trial

Summary of this case from Vlastelica v. Novoselsky

holding that creditor who had filed proof of claim had no right to a jury trial in subsequently filed adversary proceeding asserting preference claim

Summary of this case from Shubert v. Law Offices of Paul J. Winterhalter

holding that creditor who had filed proof of claim had no right to a jury trial in subsequently filed adversary proceeding asserting preference claim

Summary of this case from Shubert v. Law Offices of Paul J. Winterhalter

holding that by filing claims against the estate, debtor triggers the claims allowance process and subjects himself to equitable power of the bankruptcy court

Summary of this case from Lynn E. Feldman, of the Estate of Image Masters, Inc. v. Abn Amro Mortg. Grp. Inc.

holding that by filing claims against the estate, debtor triggers the claims allowance process and subjects himself to equitable power of the bankruptcy court

Summary of this case from Feldman v. Abn Amro Mortg. Grp. Inc.

holding that where a creditor files a proof of claim against a bankruptcy estate, that creditor is not entitled to a jury trial on a trustee's preference claim against it

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Riley (In re High Performance Real Estate, Inc.)

holding that a creditor who files a proof of claim against a bankruptcy estate is not entitled to a jury trial on a trustee's preference claim against it, emphasizing the importance of whether the creditor filed a proof of claim against the estate

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Ko (In re Richardson)

holding that because defendants filed claims against the bankruptcy estate they were not entitled to a jury trial on a preference claim

Summary of this case from Manning v. Methodist Hosps., Inc. (In re Merrillville Surgery Ctr., LLC)

holding that a creditor who files a proof of claim against a bankruptcy estate is not entitled to a jury trial on a trustee's preference claim against it, emphasizing the importance of whether the creditor filed a proof of claim against the estate

Summary of this case from Mercury Companies, Inc. v. FNF Security Acquisition, Inc.

holding that when a party submits a proof of claim, it "trigger the process of `allowance and disallowance of claims,'" and thereby is consenting to jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to make a final decision as to its claim

Summary of this case from Davis v. Life Investors Insurance Company of America

holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim, "the ensuing preference action by the trustee become integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship through the bankruptcy court's equity jurisdiction."

Summary of this case from In re Millennium Lab Holdings Ii, LLC

holding that a party who has not submitted a proof of claim is entitled to a jury trial on preference actions

Summary of this case from Phila. Entm't & Dev. Partners, L.P. v. Commonwealth (In re Phila. Entm't & Dev. Partners, L.P.)

holding that a defendant in a preference action that has filed a proof of claim is not entitled to a jury trial

Summary of this case from Davis v. R.A. Brooks Trucking, Co. (In re Quebecor World (Usa), Inc.)

holding that when respondents filed a claim against the bankruptcy estate, they brought themselves within the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to process said claim

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Felice (In re Felice)

holding a creditor that filed a claim against the estate was not entitled to a jury trial on a preference claim asserted by a bankruptcy trustee

Summary of this case from Stewart v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Stewart)

holding that when a party files a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court, it consents to the court's jurisdiction to make a final decision as to the claim

Summary of this case from Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc. v. Frontier Ins. Co. in Rehab. (In re Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc.)

holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim, the creditor brings itself within the equitable jurisdiction of the court, including jurisdiction over preference actions

Summary of this case from In re NWL Holdings, Inc.

holding that a creditor does not have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when the creditor submits a claim against the estate, since the determination of the creditor's claim and the ensuing preference action by the trustee are part of the bankruptcy court's equity jurisdiction

Summary of this case from In re Mortg. Realty Trust

holding that, where a creditor files a claim against a bankruptcy estate, and where the trustee in bankruptcy brings a preference claim against that creditor, that preference action against the creditor is triable only by the bankruptcy court in its equitable jurisdiction, and the creditor does not have a right to a jury trial on that preference action

Summary of this case from Keener Lumber Co. v. Perry

finding that because the creditors filed claims against the bankruptcy estate, the creditors brought themselves within the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and thus, were not entitled to a jury trial

Summary of this case from In re Parsons

finding that where the respondents "filed claims against the bankruptcy estate, thereby bringing themselves within the equitable jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court," "they were not entitled to a jury trial on the trustee's preference action"

Summary of this case from Trinity Commc'ns, LLC v. Momentum Telecomm., Inc. (In re Trinity Commc'ns, LLC)

concluding that claimants against the debtor submitted to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and were therefore not entitled to a jury trial on a bankruptcy trustee's preference claim

Summary of this case from In Matter of Idearc
Case details for

Langenkamp v. Culp

Case Details

Full title:LANGENKAMP, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATES OF REPUBLIC TRUST…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Nov 13, 1990

Citations

498 U.S. 42 (1990)
111 S. Ct. 330

Citing Cases

Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg Zackin, P.A

While this statement may not be a whole-hearted embrace of the Katchen approach, it is clearly not an…

Stern v. Marshall

Vickie and the dissent next attempt to distinguish Northern Pipeline and Granfinanciera on the ground that…