Opinion 2014 Nevada Cleveland Charging Order

In re Cleveland

 

In re Cleveland, 2014 WL 4809924 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2014).

 

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

 

In re Charles CLEVELAND and Ellerie Cleveland, Debtor.

 

Lenard E. Schwartzer, Trustee, Appellant,

 

v.

 

Charles Cleveland and Ellerie Cleveland, Appellees.

 

Nos. 2:14–cv–00068–GMN, BK–S–13–11315–LED.

 

Signed Sept. 29, 2014.

 

Attorneys and Law Firms

 

Jeanette E. McPherson, Jason A. Imes, Schwartzer & McPherson Law Firm, Las Vegas, NV, for Appellant.

 

Mark Bruce Segal, Mark Segal, Chartered, Las Vegas, NV, for Appellees.

 

 

 

ORDER

 

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge.

 

*1 Pending before the Court is Appellant Lenard Schwartzer's Appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's January 3, 2014, Exemption Order in Bankruptcy Case No. 13–11315–LED. Appellant filed an Opening Brief (ECF No. 7). Appellees Charles and Ellerie Cleveland filed an Answering Brief (ECF No. 11), and Appellant filed a Reply Brief (ECF No. 13).

 

I. BACKGROUND

 

On February 21, 2013, Appellees Charles and Ellerie Cleveland ("Appellees") filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). (Opening Brief 9:21–24, ECF No. 7). Appellant Lenard Schwartzer ("Appellant") was appointed as the Chapter 7 Trustee to administer the bankruptcy estate. (Id.). In their schedules, Appellees disclosed their 100% ownership interest in PFG Advisors, LLC and PFG Properties, LLC—both Nevada limited liability companies. (Schedule B, Dkt. 27, ER 7, ECF No. 7–1). PFG Advisors, LLC is Appellees' insurance agency business, and PFG Properties, LLC is "an entity formed to own an office building which had ultimately been foreclosed upon in 2012." (Answering Brief 9:19–23, ECF No. 11).

 

After Appellees filed their original and amended schedules, Appellant timely filed an Objection to Debtors' Claim of Exemptions ("Objection"). (D kt. 65, ER 38–41). Appellees filed an Opposition (D kt. 72, ER 44–63), and Appellant filed a Reply (D kt. 77, ER 74–77). After the Objection was fully briefed, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on October 25, 2013. (See Transcript of Hearing on October 25, 2013, Dkt. 106, ER 130–77). At that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court requested supplemental briefing by Appellees. (ER 172:10–12). Appellees filed their supplemental briefing on November 20, 2013 (D kt. 83, ER 78–99), and the Bankruptcy Court held another hearing on November 26, 2013 (See Transcript of Hearing on November 26, 2013, Dkt. 107, ER 178–88). At that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court directed the parties to file an order incorporating the Bankruptcy Court's findings and conclusions of law regarding Appellant's Objection. (ER 183:20–21). On January 3, 2014, an Order Denying Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exemptions ("Exemption Order") was filed. (D kt. 86, ER 104–06). The Exemption Order held:

 

1. All of the Trustee's objections to the Debtors' claims of exemptions are denied except that as to the claim of exemptions for Debtors' interests in various liability companies (including limited liability companies which the Debtors own 100% of the membership and are managers), the Court finds that although those interests are otherwise property of the bankruptcy estate the Trustee has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of those companies;

 

(ER 104:20–25). Shortly thereafter, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 1).

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

 

The Court reviews de novo the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of state exemption laws, as well as its interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code. See Hopkins v. Cerchione (In re Cerchione), 414 B.R. 540, 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.2009). The Court reviews the Bankruptcy Court's factual findings for clear error. In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 900 (9th Cir.2005); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8013. The Bankruptcy Court's factual findings are clearly erroneous only if the findings "leave the definite and firm conviction" that the Bankruptcy Court made a mistake. In re Rains, 428 F.3d at 900 (quotation omitted).

 

III. DISCUSSION

 

*2 On appeal, Appellant raises only issues of law and does not contest the underlying facts. Appellant initially raised two issues: (1) whether the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that Appellant has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of the limited liability companies, which Appellees own 100% of the membership and are managers; and (2) whether the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that 75% of the accounts receivable and/or commissions payable to a limited liability company owned 100% by Appellees are exempt. (Opening Brief 6:9–13). However, Appellant has withdrawn the second issue on appeal, and therefore, only the first issue remains. (See Reply Brief 12:8–15).

 

Appellant argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held in its Exemption Order that Appellant has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of the limited liability companies, which Appellees own 100% of the membership and are managers. (Opening Brief 20:5–7). Appellant asserts that, because bankruptcy law expressly pre-empts state law, "Nevada's exemption statutes do not provide any separate exemption for ownership interests in limited liability companies," and "[w]hen Debtors filed their petition, the Trustee stepped into their shoes and the Trustee now owns those 100% membership interests and has the right to control those LLC's." (Id. 20:1–5). On the other hand, while Appellees concede that their membership interests in their LLCs are personal property and are included in their bankruptcy estate, they argue that Appellant is limited to a charging order under Nevada state law. (See Answering Brief 18:22–20:3).

 

Numerous bankruptcy courts have held, and the Court agrees, that where a debtor has a membership interest in a single-member LLC and files a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee succeeds to all of the debtor's rights, including the right to control that entity, and a trustee need not take any further action to comply with state law before exercising such control. See, e.g., In re First Protection, Inc., 440 B.R. 821, 830 (B.A .P. 9th Cir.2010); In re B & M Land & Livestock, LLC, 498 B.R. 262, 267 (Bankr.D.Nev.2013); In re Albright, 291 B.R. 538, 541 (Bankr.D.Colo.2003). Furthermore, the Court agrees that "[s]tate law does not control the administration of property interests that are part of the bankruptcy estate." In re B & M, 498 B.R. at 268. Accordingly, Appellant is not limited to a charging order under Nevada law, and succeeds to all of Appellees' rights in the LLCs, including the right to control those entities.

 

However, Appellees argue that Appellant's rights to manage the limited liability companies should be limited because Appellees' LLC renders "personal services." (Answering Brief 18:4–15). In B & M, the court held that "where a debtor has a membership interest in a single-member LLC and files a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee's rights automatically include the right to manage that entity." 498 B.R. at 267. The B & M court held in dicta, however, that "[t]his principle may be limited where the LLC is run by or deals with matters such as professional practices or personal services. For instance, a trustee likely may not manage a law firm, medical practice, or accounting firm that is organized as an LLC." Id. Appellees argue that this limitation applies here because Appellees' LLC requires state examination and licensing in order to be in operation. (Answering Brief 21:5–8, 22:2–3). The Bankruptcy Court agreed with this reasoning. (Transcript of Hearing on November 26, 2013, Dkt. 107, ER 184:20–21).

 

*3 Appellees provide no further support for the application of this limitation. Additionally, even if B & M suggests that there may be a limit on a trustee's ability to manage certain types of LLCs, the case does not suggest that a trustee is precluded from selling the assets of an LLC. Accordingly, the Court is not convinced that Appellant's rights to sell or otherwise take ownership of the assets of Appellees' LLCs should be limited. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court erred in holding that Appellant "has no right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of" Appellees' LLCs. Appellant, as the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, has the right to sell or otherwise take ownership of any assets of Appellees' LLCs.

 

IV. CONCLUSION

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Exemption Order of the Bankruptcy Court filed January 3, 2014, is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

2021.09.30 ... Charging Order Interstate Jurisdictional Issues In Oberg

2021.09.20 ... Statutory Authority For Charging Order Against Professional Association Addressed In Berns Custom Homes

2021.08.30 ... Charging Order Jurisdictional Issues In O’Neal

2021.07.30 ... U.S. District Judge Employs Common Sense To Overrule Glitch In Charging Order Statute In Brogdon

2021.06.17 ... Delaware Chancery Court Navigates Around Charging Order Exclusivity And Recognizes Reverse Veil-Piercing

2021.03.30 ... Some Random Musings About Single-Member LLCs Versus Multiple-Member LLCs

2021.03.27 ... Collateral Attack On Charging Order Via Federal Court Fails In Kerr

______________

More Articles On Charging Orders click here

 

 

For more on the historical background of Charging Orders and contemporary issues involving the same, see Jay Adkisson's article, Charging Orders: The Peculiar Mechanism, 61 South Dakota Law Review 440 (2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2928487

 

General Information

• About Jay Adkisson and this website
• Articles About Charging Orders

 

Analysis of Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Sections re Charging Orders

• Charging Orders (Section 503) contains the general charging order provisions.

• Foreclosure of Charging Order Liens (503(c-e)) deals with foreclosure generally of an interest subject to a charging order lien.
• Foreclosure re Single-Member LLC (503(f)) is the special case of foreclosure of an LLC with only one member.

• Transfers of Transferable Interests (Section 502) includes definitions of "transfer" (102(23)), "transferable interests" (102(24)), and "transferees" (102(25)) defines to what the charging order attaches.
• Definition of Distribution (Section 102(4)) specifies the economic right obtained through a charging order lien and/or foreclosure.

 

The Uniform Acts re Charging Orders and Transferable Interests (without Jay's comments):

• Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, Article V ("ULLCA" and "RULLCA").

• Uniform Partnership Act, Article V - ("UPA" and "RUPA")
• Uniform Limited Partnership Act, Article VII - ("ULPA" and "RULPA")

 

Effect of Bankruptcy On The Debtor-Member's LLC Interest here

 

 

Collected Court Opinions On Charging Orders here and below

 

Charging Order Example Sample Form

 

 

• Jay Adkisson - More about Jay D. Adkisson, background, books, articles, speaking appearances.

 

• Creditor-Debtor Law - An overview of judgment enforcement tools and their uses by creditors, and possible defenses by debtors. Related topics include:

 

• Voidable Transactions - Discussion of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (a/k/a 2014 Revision of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act) and fraudulent transfer law in general.

 

• California Enforcement of Judgments Law - Considers the topic of judgment enforcement in California, including the California Enforcement of Judgments Law and other laws related to California creditor-debtor issues.

 

• Private Retirement Plans - An exploration of a unique creditor exemption allowed under California law which can be very beneficial but is often misused.

 

• Protected Series - An examination of the single most complex statutory legal structure yet created, with particular reference to the Uniform Protected Series Act of 2017.

 

• Asset Protection - The all-time best-selling book on asset protection planning by Jay Adkisson and Chris Riser.

 

• Anti-SLAPP Laws - A collection of and commentary about Anti-SLAPP laws and significant court decisions on the subject within the United States, and special focus on the California Anti-SLAPP law.

 

• Captive Insurance - Licensed insurance companies formed by the parent organization to handle the insurance and risk management needs of the business.

 

Contact Jay Adkisson:

 

Las Vegas Office: 6671 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Suite 210, Las Vegas, NV 89119, Ph: 702-953-9617, Fax: 877-698-0678. By appointment only.

 

Newport Beach Office: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 210, Newport Beach, California 92660. Ph: 949-200-7773, Fax: 877-698-0678. By appointment only.

 

Phone: 702-953-9617     E:Mail: jay [at] jayad.com

 

Unless a dire emergency, please send me an e-mail first in lieu of calling to set up a telephone appointment for a date and time certain.

 

Social Media Contact: Twitter and LinkedIn

 

Admitted to practice law in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas.

 

Jay is a Managing Partner of Adkisson Pitet LLP.

 

© 2021 Jay D. Adkisson. All Rights Reserved. No claim to government works or the works of the Uniform Law Commission. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction. This site is https://chargingorder.com Contact: jay [at] jayad.com or by phone to 702-953-9617 or by fax to 877-698-0678.