Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts

Last updated

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 6, 2006
Decided February 21, 2007
Full case nameRobert Louis Marrama, Petitioner v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, et al.
Docket no. 05-996
Citations549 U.S. 365 ( more )
127 S. Ct. 1105; 166 L. Ed. 2d 956; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 2651; 75 U.S.L.W. 4113; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 80,850; 57 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1; 47 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 221; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 93
Case history
PriorIn re Marrama, 313 B.R. 525 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2004); affirmed, 430 F.3d 474 (1st Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 547 U.S. 1191(2006).
Holding
First Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmed
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas
Laws applied
Bankruptcy Code

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case about bad faith in bankruptcy. [1]

Contents

Facts

On March 11, 2003, Robert Marrama filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7, thereby creating an estate consisting of all his property “wherever located and by whomever held.” [2] Respondent Citizens Bank of Massachusetts was the principal creditor.

In his petition, Marrama made a number of statements about his house in Maine that were misleading or inaccurate. While he disclosed that he was the sole beneficiary of the trust that owned the property, he listed its value as zero. He also denied that he had transferred any property other than in the ordinary course of business during the year preceding the filing of his petition. Neither statement was true. In fact, the Maine property had substantial value, and Marrama had transferred it into the newly created trust for no consideration seven months prior to filing his Chapter 13 petition. Marrama later admitted that the purpose of the transfer was to protect the property from his creditors.

Procedural history

At the hearing, Marrama explained that his misstatements about the Maine property were attributable to a “scrivener’s error” and claimed an absolute right to convert his claim from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. The Bankruptcy Judge rejected these arguments. Marrama appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. [3] On appeal from the panel, the full First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument that §706(a) gives a Chapter 7 debtor an absolute right to convert to Chapter 13. [4] Marrama appealed again to the Supreme Court. Because other circuit courts had issued contrary opinions, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the difference. [5]

Decision

Issue

Does a debtor who acts in bad faith before, or in the course of, filing a Chapter 13 petition by, for example, fraudulently concealing significant assets, thereby forfeit his right to obtain Chapter 13 relief?

Parties' arguments

Marrama's argument was that he had an absolute right to convert his case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 under the plain language of §706(a) of the Code. [6]

Citizens Bank argued that the statute uses the word “may” rather than “shall,” leaving room for the courts, in their discretion, to construe a "bad faith" exception to the general rule.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Stevens wrote the opinion for the Court. Agreeing with the First Circuit's opinion, the Court held that there is a bad faith exception to the right to convert from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11. According to the Court, "a Chapter 13 proceeding may be either dismissed or converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding 'for cause' and includes a nonexclusive list of 10 causes justifying that relief. None of the specified causes mentions prepetition bad-faith conduct.... Bankruptcy courts nevertheless routinely treat dismissal for prepetition bad-faith conduct as implicitly authorized by the words 'for cause.'" [7]

Dissent

Justice Alito dissented from the opinion of the Court, and was joined by three other Justices. Alito found that the imposition of the bad-faith exception "is inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code." His opinion follows the plain language of the statute, specifically the passage that indicates that a "debtor may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 11, 12, or 13 of this title at any time, if the case has not been converted under section 1112, 1208, or 1307 of this title." [6] He finds that to read an implied bad-faith exception would violate the actual wording of the statute, and that the statute functions well without need of such an interpretation.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bankruptcy in the United States</span> Overview of bankruptcy in the United States of America

In the United States, bankruptcy is largely governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, including through adoption of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, codified in Title 11 of the United States Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a statute of limitations on government actions for contract claims applies to actions by a federal administrative agency to recover royalties on federal oil and gas leases. After two members recused themselves, the court ruled unanimously that it does not apply, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about the application of the Confrontation Clause and whether Crawford v. Washington (2006) applied retroactively. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that Crawford did not apply retroactively.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about attorney's fees in bankruptcy cases. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157 (1991), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals are eligible to file for relief under the reorganization provisions of chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, even if they are not engaged in a business. The case overturned the lower courts ruling which restricted individuals to chapter 7.

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48, a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. 61 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the means test in Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The means test had been adopted by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and Ransom is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court addressed provisions of that act.

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when an action has been removed from state court to a United States Bankruptcy Court, and the bankruptcy court remands to state court because of a timely-raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the removal statute precludes a United States Court of Appeals from reviewing the order.

Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014), is a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States that describes the extent of the powers of bankruptcy courts in dealing with the bad faith of debtors.

Bankruptcy in Florida is made under title 11 of the United States Code, which is referred to as the Bankruptcy Code. Although bankruptcy is a federal procedure, in certain regards, it looks to state law, such as to exemptions and to define property rights. The Bankruptcy Code provides that each state has the choice whether to "opt in" and use the federal exemptions or to "opt out" and to apply the state law exemptions. Florida is an "opt out" state in regard to exemptions. Bankruptcy in the United States is provided for under federal law as provided in the United States Constitution. Under the federal constitution, there are no state bankruptcy courts. The bankruptcy laws are primarily contained in 11 U.S.C. 101, et seq. The Bankruptcy Code underwent a substantial amendment in 2005 with the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005", often referred to as "BAPCPA". The Bankruptcy Code provides for a set of federal bankruptcy exemptions, but each states is allowed is choose whether it will "opt in" or "opt out" of the federal exemptions. In the event that a state opts out of the federal exemptions, the exemptions are provided for the particular exemption laws of the state with the application with certain federal exemptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop. The Court delivered its ruling on December 15, 2014.

Harris v. Viegelahn, 575 U.S. 498 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified procedures for disposing wages after a debtor files for bankruptcy. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that if a debtor earns money after filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, and converts to Chapter 7 bankruptcy before the money is sent to creditors, the debtor is permitted to keep those funds.

Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. 790, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015), is a bankruptcy law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 1, 2015. In Caulkett, the Court held that 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) does not permit a Chapter 7 debtor to void a junior mortgage on the debtor's property when the amount of the debt secured by the senior mortgage on that property exceeds the property's current market value.

Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bears the burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute limiting multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction.

References

  1. ↑ Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 (2007).
  2. ↑ 11 U.S.C.   § 541(a) .
  3. ↑ In re Marrama, 313B.R.525 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.2004).
  4. ↑ In re Marrama, 430F.3d474 ( 1st Cir. 2005).
  5. ↑ Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 547 U.S. 1191(2006).
  6. 1 2 11 U.S.C.   § 706(a) .
  7. ↑ Marrama, 549 U.S. at 373.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.