Fifth Circuit, in Bankruptcy Ruling, Lets Convicted Businessman Pay Criminal Defense Counsel with House Sale Proceeds
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a Texas businessman who was sentenced to two years in prison for bankruptcy fraud may…
March 13, 2018 at 02:30 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a Texas businessman who was sentenced to two years in prison for bankruptcy fraud may use the sale of the proceeds of his house to pay his criminal defense attorneys, rejecting a U.S. bankruptcy trustee's attempts to claim the home sale proceeds as part of his estate.
Curtis Harold DeBerry, the former owner of a failed produce company in Boerne, Texas, was eventually sentenced to two years in prison last year for hiding assets from creditors in bankruptcy.
As part of DeBerry's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, which he filed in 2014, he used the Texas homestead exemption law to protect his house from the bankruptcy estate. DeBerry sold his house later that year for $364,592, did not reinvest the proceeds and instead transferred the money to his wife and to San Antonio's Goldstein Goldstein & Hilley for the benefit of Gerry Goldstein and Cynthia Orr, two firm partners who represented DeBerry in a criminal matter.
The bankruptcy trustee in the case later filed an adversarial proceeding against DeBerry and Goldstein Goldstein & Hilley alleging DeBerry's creditors were entitled to the money because he had not reinvested the cash in another homestead within six months as required under the proceeds rule of Texas homestead exemption law.
DeBerry and the law firm argued the proceeds were exempt at the time of the filing of his bankruptcy petition and a bankruptcy court agreed holding that when a Chapter 7 debtor sells his exempted Texas homestead postpetition, the proceeds of the sale of the home are likewise exempted. However a U.S. District court reversed that ruling, which the bankruptcy trustee appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
After the parties filed their appellate briefs in the case, the Fifth Circuit decided Hawk v. Engelhart, holding that funds withdrawn from an exempted retirement account after the filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy do not lose their exempt status within 60 days under the Texas proceeds rule.
DeBerry and the law firm argued that Hawk applied to the case, while the trustee argued that it didn't because the decision involved a retirement account instead of a homestead.
In its decision, the Fifth Circuit determined that Hawk did apply and the proceeds from the sale of DeBerry's home should be exempt from his creditors.
“The analysis in Hawk and ours today does not turn on giving DeBerry a 'fresh start'; it turns on the clear principles of Texas law providing an exemption for homesteads,” Judge Gregg Costa explained in a footnote to his decision in the case. “The trustee also invokes the Bankruptcy Code's goal of treating creditors equally, as the lawyers received all the homestead proceeds. But the other creditors are no worse off than they would have been if DeBerry had kept his home. Exclusion of that asset from the estate is always the effect of the homestead exemption.”
“Just as the retirement account in Hawk was exempt because it was owned on the date the Chapter 7 petition was filed, so too is the homestead exempt because it was owned at the commencement of DeBerry's bankruptcy,” Costa concluded in the opinion.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAm Law 50's Runaway Rates Put Onus on Legal Departments to Stiffen Resistance
4 minute readSenior Partners Approach $3,000 an Hour, As More Billing Rate Hikes Expected in 2025
5 minute readLaw Firms Look 'Stronger Than Ever,' Even Compared With Transactional Boom
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250