| 词条 | Law v. Siegel |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Law v. Siegel |ArgueDate=January 13 |ArgueYear=2014 |DecideDate=March 4 |DecideYear=2014 |FullName=Stephen Law, Petitioner v. Alfred H. Siegel, Chapter 7 Trustee |USVol=571 |USPage=___ |ParallelCitations=134 S. Ct. 1188; 188 L. Ed. 2d 146 |Docket=12-5196 |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_5196/argument |Prior={{cite court |litigants= Law v. Siegel (In re Law)|vol= 435|reporter= Fed. App'x|opinion= 697|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir.|date= 2011|url= http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Law_v_Siegel_In_re_Law_435_Fed_Appx_697_9th_Cir_2011_Court_Opinio|accessdate= |quote=}}, affirming {{cite court |litigants= In re Law|vol= 2009|reporter= WL|opinion= 7751415|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir. B.A.P.|date= 2009|url= |accessdate= |quote=}}, affirming {{cite court |litigants= In re Law|vol= 401|reporter= B.R.|opinion= 447|pinpoint= |court= Bkrtcy. Ct. CD Cal. |date= 2009|url= https://www.courtlistener.com/cacb/aLan/in-re-law/|accessdate= |quote=}}, cert. granted, {{ussc|570|904|2013|el=no}}. |Subsequent= |Holding=Whatever other sanctions a bankruptcy court may impose on a dishonest debtor, it may not contravene express provisions of the Bankruptcy Code by ordering that the debtor’s exempt property be used to pay debts and expenses for which that property is not liable under the Code. |SCOTUS=2010–2016 |Majority=Scalia J, for a unanimous Court |LawsApplied= {{usc|11|105}} (power of the bankruptcy court), {{usc|11|522}} (exemptions from bankrupt estate) }} Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. ___ (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. BackgroundWhen Law filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2004, his sole asset was a home in Hacienda Heights, California that was said to be worth $363,000.[1] He declared that:
It was discovered in subsequent litigation{{efn|Law appealed orders of the Bankruptcy Court over a dozen times to the Bankruptcy Appeal Panel and seven times to the Court of Appeals.[1]}} that the second mortgage lien did not exist. The house sold for about $680,000,[1] and only one creditor timely filed a proof of claim which was settled for $120,000.[1] The trustee sought to surcharge the homestead exemption in order to be reimbursed for his legal expenses in the matter. The courts belowThe United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, in accordance with existing jurisprudence within the Ninth Circuit,{{efn|{{cite court |litigants= Latman v. Burdette|vol= 366|reporter= F. 3d|opinion= 774|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir.|date= 2004|url= http://openjurist.org/366/f3d/774/latman-v-burdette-k-l|accessdate= |quote=}} and {{cite court |litigants= In Re Onubah|vol= 375|reporter= B.R.|opinion= 549|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir. BAP|date= 2007|url= |accessdate= |quote=}}}} ordered that Law's homestead must be surcharged in its entirety. This was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appeals Panel, and subsequently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the Supreme CourtThe Ninth Circuit ruling was reversed. In a unanimous ruling, Justice Scalia noted that:[2]
As {{USCSub|11|522|k}} expressly states that a homestead exemption is "not liable for payment of any administrative expense," the court exceeded the limits of its authority under §105(a) and its inherent powers. The Court's ruling in Marrama[3] would not have led to a different result, as its dictum only "suggests that in some circumstances a bankruptcy court may be authorized to dispense with futile procedural niceties in order to reach more expeditiously an end result required by the Code."[4] The bankruptcy court still has various sanctions available to enforce its judgments:[5]
Justice Scalia acknowledged the seeming unfairness of the result: {{Quote|We acknowledge that our ruling forces Siegel to shoulder a heavy financial burden resulting from Law's egregious misconduct, and that it may produce inequitable results for trustees and creditors in other cases. We have recognized, however, that in crafting the provisions of §522, "Congress balanced the difficult choices that exemption limits impose on debtors with the economic harm that exemptions visit on creditors."[7] The same can be said of the limits imposed on recovery of administrative expenses by trustees. For the reasons we have explained, it is not for courts to alter the balance struck by the statute.[8] }} ImpactThe decision is described as "brisk and workmanlike," and "[t]he absence of qualifications or quibbles in its description of the relevant principles make it just the kind of opinion that is likely to be cited frequently in future briefs to the Court."[9] Law is also seen as forcing trustees and creditors to be more aggressive, early in the case, either to object to exemptions or file a motion to extend the time to object to exemptions in order to provide enough time for investigation.[10] Justice Scalia did not note another sanction that is available under FRBP §{{frbp|4003}} which provides that a trustee may still file an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption "at any time prior to one year after the closing of the case, if the debtor fraudulently asserted the claim of exemption." However, this provision only came into effect in 2008, and therefore was not applicable in this case.[10] While equitable subordination is authorized under {{USCSub|11|502|b}} as a remedy to ensure that creditors acting in bad faith will not be paid until other valid creditors are paid in full, the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly provide for a similar "equitable disallowance" remedy with respect to debtors acting in bad faith. Although several of the lower courts had previously ruled in favour of such a remedy,{{efn|relying on Pepper v. Litton, {{ussc|308|295|1939}}}} it appears that Law strongly supports the conclusion that equitable disallowance does not exist under the Code.[11] Law, together with Stern v. Marshall, can also be seen as another limitation on the bankruptcy courts’ inherent authority under §105, thereby reducing the courts' flexibility and discretion that are necessary for the proper functioning of the bankruptcy system.[12]Notes{{notelist}}References1. ^1 2 3 {{cite court |litigants= In re Stephen Law|vol= |reporter= |opinion= CC-10-1499-MkLaPa|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir. B.A.P.|date= 2012|url= http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2013/10/08/Law%20Memo%2010-1499.pdf|accessdate= |quote=}} 2. ^USSC, at II.A. 3. ^1 Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, {{ussc|549|365|2007|source=f}} 4. ^USSC, at II.C. 5. ^USSC, at II.D. 6. ^Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., {{ussc|501|32|1991}} 7. ^{{ussc|name=Schwab v. Reilly|volume=560|page=770|pin=|year=2010}}. 8. ^{{ussc|name=Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Pension Fund|link=|volume=493|page=365|pin=376-77|year=1990}}. 9. ^{{cite web|author = Ronald Mann|title = Opinion analysis: Justices stick with Bankruptcy Code text, rejecting Ninth Circuit’s creative punishment of lying bankrupt|url = http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-justices-stick-with-bankruptcy-code-text-rejecting-ninth-circuits-creative-punishment-of-lying-bankrupt/|publisher = SCOTUSblog|date = March 4, 2014}} 10. ^1 {{cite web|author = Kevin C. McGee|title = Exemptions, Objections, and Law v. Siegel|url = http://impudentbankruptcylawyer.blogspot.ca/2014/03/exemptions-objections-and-law-v-siegel.html|publisher = impudentbankruptcylawyer|date = March 5, 2014}} 11. ^{{cite web|author1 = Philip D. Anker|author2 = Craig Goldblatt|author3 = Andrew N. Goldman|author4 = Danielle Spinelli|author5 = Lisa E. Ewart|title = Law v. Siegel: The End of Equitable Disallowance?|url = http://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=10737423550|publisher = WilmerHale|date = March 6, 2014}} 12. ^{{cite web|author1 = Robert S. Westermann|author2 = David K.Spiro|author3 = Sheila de La Cruz|author4 = Rachel A. Greenleaf|title = Law v. Siegel: Chapter 7 Trustees and Bankruptcy Courts Lose, While Debtor’s Fraudulent Behavior Goes Unpunished|publisher = Hirschler Fleischer|date = March 5, 2014}} External links
| case = Law v. Siegel, {{ussc|571|___|2014|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/571/12-5196/ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-5196 | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) | other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-5196_8mjp.pdf
6 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|United States bankruptcy case law|United States civil procedure case law|2014 in United States case law|History of Los Angeles County, California |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。