United Savings Association
of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
484
U.S. 365
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
undersecured creditor sought review of an en banc decision, by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that
petitioner was not entitled to receive from respondent debtor,
undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy, monthly payments for the use
value of the loan collateral which the bankruptcy stay prevented
petitioner from possessing.
FACTS: Petitioner sought review of an en banc decision holding that petitioner was not entitled to receive from respondent--undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy--monthly payments for the use value of the loan collateral which bankruptcy stay prevented petitioner from possessing. 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d)(1), protecting "interest in property" and allowing unsecured creditor relief from automatic stay on the grounds of lack of adequate protection, did not include petitioner's purported right to an immediate foreclosure proceeding. The 11 U.S.C.S. § 506(b) denial of postpetition interest to undersecured creditors merely codified pre-Code bankruptcy law in which that denial was part of an allocation of reorganization's benefits and losses between undersecured and unsecured creditors.
HOLDING:
Petitioner's interpretation of 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d)(1) was inconsistent with 11 U.S.C.S. § 552, which stated a general rule that a prepetition security interest did not reach property acquired postpetition.
ANALYSIS:
Petitioner's legislative history arguments were contravened when Congress would not likely have made major change without specific provision in text of the statute.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed, as the Bankruptcy Code provision protecting "interest in property" and allowing an unsecured creditor relief from an automatic stay on the grounds of lack of adequate protection did not include petitioner's purported right to an immediate foreclosure proceeding. Prepetition security interest did not reach property acquired postpetition.
FACTS: Petitioner sought review of an en banc decision holding that petitioner was not entitled to receive from respondent--undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy--monthly payments for the use value of the loan collateral which bankruptcy stay prevented petitioner from possessing. 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d)(1), protecting "interest in property" and allowing unsecured creditor relief from automatic stay on the grounds of lack of adequate protection, did not include petitioner's purported right to an immediate foreclosure proceeding. The 11 U.S.C.S. § 506(b) denial of postpetition interest to undersecured creditors merely codified pre-Code bankruptcy law in which that denial was part of an allocation of reorganization's benefits and losses between undersecured and unsecured creditors.
HOLDING:
Petitioner's interpretation of 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d)(1) was inconsistent with 11 U.S.C.S. § 552, which stated a general rule that a prepetition security interest did not reach property acquired postpetition.
ANALYSIS:
Petitioner's legislative history arguments were contravened when Congress would not likely have made major change without specific provision in text of the statute.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed, as the Bankruptcy Code provision protecting "interest in property" and allowing an unsecured creditor relief from an automatic stay on the grounds of lack of adequate protection did not include petitioner's purported right to an immediate foreclosure proceeding. Prepetition security interest did not reach property acquired postpetition.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment