Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Dunn (In re Dunn)

589 B.R. 253

IN RE: Markel Steven DUNN, Debtor.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp., Appellant,

v.Markel Steven Dunn, Appellee.

Civil No. 5:17-cv-04683

Bankruptcy No. 17-14098REF

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed July 24, 2018

Charles Laputka, Allentown, PA, for Debtor.

Kevin G. McDonald, Thomas I. Puleo, KML Law Group, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

OPINION

Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this Court is an appeal by Appellant-Creditor, Toyota Motor Credit, from the Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dated October 3, 2017. In that Order, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Automatic Stay filed by Appellee-Debtor, Markel Steven Dunn, because Toyota repossessed Dunn's vehicle prior to the expiration of time for Dunn to reaffirm the debt. Because this Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that Toyota wrongfully repossessed the Land Rover only sixteen days into the thirty days allotted to Dunn to perform his stated intention, the Bankruptcy Court's Order is affirmed.

II. BACKGROUND

The personal property at issue is a Toyota Land Rover, which acts as collateral for a loan from Toyota to Dunn. See Order of Oct. 3, 2017, ¶ 1(a), ECF No. 2-1.

On June 12, 2017, Dunn filed his initial bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7. Id. ; Petition, ECF No. 2-2. Along with that petition, he filed a statement of intention, which indicated that his intent with respect to the Land Rover was to "Retain—Debtors [sic] will continue to make payments." Id. ; Stmt Intention, ECF No. 2-2. The Bankruptcy Court found that Dunn's statement: "will continue to make payments" meant he wanted to retain the Land Rover and would attempt to reaffirm the debt. See Order of Oct. 3, 2017, ¶ 7(c) n.2, ¶ 12(c) n.6. The court, guided by the "fresh start" the Bankruptcy Code is intended to provide a debtor, reasoned that the language constituted a reaffirmation because it did not sound in either surrender or redemption. See id. and ¶ 15.

The first date for the meeting of creditors was set for August 2, 2017. See Order of Oct. 3, 2017, ¶ 1(b). Sixteen days after that date, on August 18, 2017, Toyota repossessed the Land Rover. Id. ¶ 1(c). Dunn moved for sanctions against Toyota for violation of the automatic stay. Id. at 1; 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The Bankruptcy Court found that Dunn timely complied with § 521(a)(2)(A) and could have fulfilled his intention to reaffirm in compliance with § 521(a)(2)(B), but Toyota made it impossible by repossessing the Land Rover only sixteen days later. Id. ¶¶ 7(a)-(d), 9-10.¹ The court concluded that § 362(h)(1) did not provide Toyota relief from the automatic stay and, therefore, Toyota was not within its rights to repossess the vehicle on August 18, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 7(c)-(d), 14, 16.

Toyota appeals the Order for sanctions entered against it. On appeal, Toyota argues, inter alia , Dunn did not timely file a statement of intention with respect to the Land Rover because his statement that he "will continue to make payments" did not indicate either an intent to redeem or to reaffirm the debt. Toyota asserts, instead, Dunn elected the "ride-through" option, but that option was eliminated by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23. Accordingly, Toyota contends that Dunn failed to timely file the required statement of intention and that the automatic stay had terminated pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal, a district court reviews a bankruptcy court's findings of fact applying a "clearly erroneous" standard of review. See Am. Flint Glass Workers Union v. Anchor Resolution Corp. , 197 F.3d 76, 80 (3d Cir. 1999). A district court reviews the bankruptcy court's legal determinations de novo. See Sovereign Bank v. Schwab , 414 F.3d 450, 452 (3d Cir. 2005) ; J.P. Fyfe, Inc. v. Bradco Supply Corp. , 891 F.2d 66, 69 (3d Cir. 1989).

IV. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Statement of Intention, 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2)

Title 11 of the United States Code sets forth the procedure for filing bankruptcy. See generally 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 1532. Specifically, § 521 of Title 11 provides the "Debtor's duties" with respect to filing for bankruptcy. See id. § 521.

When an individual files for bankruptcy and his or her "schedule of assets and liabilities includes debts which are secured by property of the estate ... [,]" a debtor must take action to file a "statement of intention" with respect to the secured property. 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2)(A). The debtor has "thirty days after the date of the filing of the petition under chapter 7 ... or on or before the date of the meeting of the creditors, whichever is earlier ..." to file his statement of intention. Id. The statement must specify the debtor's "intention with respect to the retention or surrender of such property and, if applicable, specify[ ] that such property is claimed as exempt, that the debtor intends to redeem such property, or that the debtor intends to reaffirm debts secured by such property...." Id.

After an individual states his intention, he then must, "within 30 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors ... perform his intention with respect to such property...." Id. § 521(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that § 521(a)(2)(A) and (B) requires four actions: (1) a debtor must timely file the statement of intention, (2) a debtor must declare that he intends to retain or surrender the collateral, (3) a debtor must, if he chooses to retain the collateral, indicate his intent to either redeem² the collateral or to reaffirm³ the debt,⁴ and (4) a debtor must timely perform the action indicated in his statement of intention. See Order of Oct. 3, 2017, ¶ 12.

Prior to the BAPCPA amendments in 2005, § 521(a)(2)(C)⁵ stated that "nothing in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph shall alter the debtor's or trustee's rights with regard to such property under this title." In re Ertha Rice , No. 06-10975, 2007 WL 781893, at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2007) (citing In re Price , 370 F.3d at 372 ). With the BAPCPA, the phrase "except as provided in [§] 362(h)" was added to that same language. Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2) [B] ).

B. Automatic Stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362

The automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code provide that the filing of a petition for bankruptcy "operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of ... any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate...." 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). Section 362(h) provides that the automatic stay is terminated if the debtor fails, within the applicable time:

(A) to file timely any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2) with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section 722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c) applicable to the debt secured by such personal property, or assume such unexpired lease pursuant to section 365(p) if the trustee does not do so, as applicable; and

(B) to take timely the action specified in such statement, as it may be amended before expiration of the period for taking action, unless such statement specifies the debtor's intention to reaffirm such debt on the original contract terms and the creditor refuses to agree to the reaffirmation on such terms.

Id. § 362(h).

V. ANALYSIS

A. The parties do not dispute that the BAPCPA amendments in 2005 eliminated the ride-through option.

Prior to the BAPCPA amendments in 2005, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the propriety of the ride-through option for a debt in a bankruptcy matter. See In re Price , 370 F.3d 362, 376-77 (3d Cir. 2004). A ride-through was an option apart from the reaffirmation and redemption options by which the debtor could avoid re-attaching the personal liability required by a reaffirmation agreement by continuing to make regular payments on a secured asset. Id. The court had determined that "the statutory language of [§] 521 on its own ... does not limit a debtor's substantive retention options to the three stated therein." Id. The court found crucial the language of § 521(a)(2)(C), which had stated "nothing in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph shall alter the debtor's or trustee's rights with regard to such property under this title." See id. at 372.

Although the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed the propriety of the ride-through after the BAPCPA amendments, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously determined that the ride-through option is no longer a proper means of retaining collateral. See In re Rice , No. 06-10975, 2007 WL 781893, at *4 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2007) (holding that "Congress intended to and did succeed in eliminating the ride-through option to a debtor's treatment of her secured collateral by adding § 362(h) to the Code and referencing it in § 521(a)(2)"). Other circuit courts have also determined that the BAPCPA eliminated the ride-through option. See, e.g. In re Jones , 591 F.3d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2010) ("Therefore, BAPCPA amended Title 11 to eliminate the ride-through option...."); In re Dumont , 581 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that "ride-through is not available to all"). Additionally, a number of circuits held, even prior to the BAPCPA amendments, that ride-through was not an option.⁶

Here, the Bankruptcy Court, following the court's decision in In re Rice concluded that the BAPCPA eliminated the ride-through option. Neither party disputes this determination, nor is it necessary for this Court to decide the issue because regardless of whether the ride-through option remains...