Skip Page Banner  
Skip Navigation

Eighth Circuit B.A.P. Affirms Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Trustee's Motion to Sell Debtor's Jointly-Owned Property

Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Lovald v. Tennyson (In re Wolk), No. 11-6027, 2011 BL 183928 (8th Cir. B.A.P. July 14, 2011) The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (“B.A.P.”) affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a trustee’s motion to sell a debtor’s jointly-owned real estate free and clear of the co-owner’s interest pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(b) and (h). In doing so, the B.A.P. held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the property did not outweigh the substantial detriment that would be imposed on the co-owner who had contributed the majority of the equity in the property.

Bankruptcy Court Denies Sale of Property

John S. Lovald (“Debtor”) and his non-debtor spouse, Kathryn Tennyson ("Defendant" or "Tennyson"), were in the process of divorcing when Debtor filed his bankruptcy petition. At that time the couple owned a single-family residence in South Dakota as tenants in common, however, Debtor did not claim a homestead exemption in the property. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the trustee (“Trustee”) sought authority to sell the jointly owned property, arguing that the benefit to the estate of the sale would outweigh any detriment to Tennyson. The bankruptcy court determined that, since Tennyson had contributed more toward the purchase price of the house than Debtor and had made all of the payments on the first mortgage, any equity in the property would accrue to her and not Debtor upon sale of the property. To that end, the bankruptcy court resolved that the estate would not benefit should the property be sold and as such, denied the Trustee’s motion to sell. In response to the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion to sell, the Trustee appealed to the B.A.P claiming that, pursuant to section 544(a), he was granted the rights and powers of a hypothetical judicial lienholder or bona fide purchaser rendering Tennyson's contribution argument irrelevant. The B.A.P. remanded the matter to allow the bankruptcy court to consider the issue since the Trustee had only raised the issue of its rights and powers under section 544(a) on appeal. Upon remand, the bankruptcy court rejected the Trustee’s section 544(a) argument and denied the Trustee’s motion to sell the property finding that the Trustee had failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the amount of equity in the property outweighed the potential detriment to Tennyson should the sale proceed. Thereafter, the Trustee appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the B.A.P.

Bankruptcy Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

Rendering its decision on appeal, the B.A.P. explained that authorization to sell property under section 363(h) is discretionary with the bankruptcy court. See Probasco v. Eads (In re Probasco), 839 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1988). Next, the B.A.P. remarked that when reviewing a bankruptcy court's decision for abuse of discretion it must look for failure to apply the proper legal standard or findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. Beginning its analysis, the B.A.P. noted that section 363(h) provides, in relevant part, that a trustee can sell both the estate's interest and the interest of any co-owner in property only if the benefit to the estate of a sale of the property free and the interest of the co-owners outweighs the detriment to the co-owners. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(h)(3). Furthermore, the B.A.P. observed that the trustee bears the ultimate burden to demonstrate that the benefit to the estate outweighs the detriment to the defendant. See Yoppolo v. Schwenker (In re Ziegler), 396 B.R. 1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2008). Applying these standards in the instant case, the B.A.P. concluded that the bankruptcy court had correctly calculated the potential sale value of the estate and that the Trustee had failed to meet his burden of proving that any realized funds would be available for distribution to the unsecured creditors. In contrast, the B.A.P. resolved that there was a significant showing that any sale would be to the detriment of Tennyson, including a history of depression, the testimony of the co-owner’s therapist that a sale could well cause her significant health issues, and the fact that all the equity in the home had been contributed by the co-owner, not Debtor. Accordingly, the B.A.P. held that the bankruptcy court correctly held that the Trustee had failed to meet his burden of proving that the benefit to the bankruptcy estate of the sale outweighed the detriment to Tennyson, such that denial of the motion to sell was not an abuse of the bankruptcy court's discretion.

B.A.P. Affirms Bankruptcy Court’s Denial of Trustee’s Motion to Sell

Ultimately affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of the Trustee’s motion to sell, the B.A.P. concluded that the bankruptcy court did abuse its discretion in ruling that the Trustee had failed to demonstrate that the benefit to Debtor’s estate of a sale of the property outweighed the detriment to the co-owner. Disclaimer This document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy. ©2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

To view additional stories from Bloomberg Law® request a demo now