Topics
Casenotes: 2007 WDNY Bankruptcy cases
Casenotes: 2008 WDNY Bankruptcy cases
Casenotes: 2009 WDNY Bankruptcy cases
Casenotes: 2010 WDNY Bankruptcy cases
Legislation and Rules Updates
News from the Western District of New York Bankruptcy Court
Notes from BAPCPA
Notes on Bankruptcy Cases outside WDNY
Statistical trends in WDNY bankruptcies
Supreme Court bankruptcy cases
Recent Updates
July 27, 2010
A (Brief) history of New York exemptions, Part I
July 06, 2010
Bankruptcy exemption expansion passes New York legislature, awaits Governor's signature
June 29, 2010
Bankruptcy Exemption may expand in NY - an historical perspective
June 21, 2010
Retroactive application of Increased homestead exemption; Part II: Calloway and Nguyen
June 21, 2010
Bad Faith Chapter 13 plan: case filed 10 days after property transferred: Johnson
Archives
Non-debtor co-owner a necessary party to bankruptcy sale: Bankruptcy Exchange, Inc. v Langsland
Posted by: Peter Scribner
November 17, 2009
Topic: Recent Cases in the bankruptcy Court Western District of New York
On November 9, 2007, Eleanor Langslands, the co-owner filed a motion to vacate the sale on the grounds that she was never notified of the sale and she now had a hostile co-owner. A letter from her attorney filed later stated, among other things, that she lost her STAR property tax exemption because of the new non-resident co-owner. The issue, as framed by the court, was whether the co-owner was a “creditor” as that term is used in bankruptcy and, therefore, a party that must be served with notice of sale. Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan wrote a decision, entered April 2, 2008, stating that the term “creditor” was broad enough to include the non-debtor co-owner. Interestingly, Bankruptcy Judge Bucki, who was not the judge in the case, co-signed the decision, indicating that this would be the rule at least in the Buffalo Division of the Western District of New York Bankruptcy Court. This decision is NOT found on the court website under Judge Kaplan’s written decisions, but it can be found and viewed, at no charge, under the April 2, 2008 PACER docket entry for this case.
Bankruptcy Exchange, Inc. appealed to District Court, which upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision. The District Court noted that “joint tenants”, which Deborah and Eleanor Langsland were before the filing of the bankruptcy, must have the four “unities” of ownership: time, title, interest and possession. When Deborah Langsland filed her case, the trustee became the real estate owner, breaking at two of the unities. The court said the trustee became “tenant-in-common”, rather than joint tenant, with Eleanor Landsland. The change in Eleanor Landsland’s interest gave her a possible claim in the case. Therefore, as a creditor, she was entitled to notice of sale.
This case appears to be an effort of the courts to find grounds to give the co-owner the right to object to this egregious sale. It is odd that the bankruptcy code does not give co-owners a direct right to notice of a cale of a co-owner’s interest. An interesting unforseen consequence of the District Court’s decision is the conclusion that a joint tenancy becomes a tenancy-in-common upon filing. Would that also happen if only one spouse of married tenants-by-the-entireties filed? Is the joint tenancy restored when the real estate is abandoned back to the debtor at the conclusion of the case? What if both owners filed? Further complications can be imagined.
