Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02483/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02483-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________

No. 09-2483

__________

In re: Richard Burival, *

also known as Burival Brothers, *

A Partnership, *

Phillip Burival, *

also known as B & B Farms, * 

also known as Burival Farms; * 

Gary M. Burival, * 

also known as B & B Farms, * 

also known as Burival Farms; * 

 Joyce A. Burival, * 

also known as B & B Farms, * Appeal from the United States

also known as Burival Farms, * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

* for the Eighth Circuit.

Debtors. *

------------------------------ *

Richard Burival, *

also known as Burival Brothers, *

A Partnership; Phillip Burival, *

also known as Burival Brother, * 

A Partnership; *

Gary M. Burival, *

also known as B & B Farms, *

also known as Burival Farms; *

 Joyce A. Burival, *

also known as B & B Farms, *

also known as Burival Farms, *

*

Appellants, *

v. *

*

Appellate Case: 09-2483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686371
-2-

Loretta Roehrich, *

Conservator of the Estate *

 of Rosie Pritchett, *

a protected person, *

*

Appellee. *

---------------------------------- *

Loretta Roehrich, *

Conservator of the Estate *

 of Rosie Pritchett, *

a protected person, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Richard Burival, *

also known as Burival Brothers; *

Phillip Burival, *

also known as Burival Brothers, *

A Partnership; *

Gary M. Burival, *

also known as B & B Farms, *

also known as Burival Farms; *

 Joyce A. Burival, *

also known as B & B Farms, *

also known as Burival Farms, *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: March 9, 2010

 Filed: July 23, 2010

___________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 09-2483 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686371
1

The Honorable Barry S. Schermer, Member of the United States Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

-3-

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

On March 23, 2007, Burival Brothers – which includes four individuals (Richard

Burival, Phillip Burival, Gary M. Burival, and Joyce A. Burival) and three partnerships

(B& B Farms, Burival Brothers, and Burival Farms) – leased crop land for three years

from Rosie Pritchett. The lease required two payments, $75,329.78 on April 1 and

$90,799.22 on December 1. Burival Brothers filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on

November 29, 2007 – two days before the rent was due. Burival Brothers rejected the

lease on March 19, 2008. Pritchett filed a claim for an administrative expense of

$90,799.22 for the December payment, under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3), plus attorney fees

and costs.

The bankruptcy court allowed prorated rent of $50,521 as an administrative

expense, plus attorney fees, costs, and interest. In re Burival, 392 B.R. 793, 802

(Bankr. D. Neb. 2008). Burival Brothers appealed to the bankruptcy appellate panel

(BAP). Pritchett cross-appealed. The BAP1

 reversed, allowing recovery of the entire

rent obligation as an administrative claim. In re Burival, 406 B.R. 548, 555-56

(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2009). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), this court

affirms the BAP.

The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and its

conclusions of law de novo. Granite Reinsurance Co. v. Acceptance Ins. Co. (In re

Acceptance Ins. Co.), 567 F.3d 369, 376 (8th Cir. 2009). 

 The 2007 crop year ended before Burival Brothers filed for bankruptcy. They

assert that the rent due on December 1 is a pre-petition unsecured claim because the

land’s value to the estate was used before the bankruptcy filing. They rely on a ninth

circuit BAP decision that a bankruptcy estate is liable only for the reasonable value of

Appellate Case: 09-2483 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686371
2

Congress’s title for the group of amendments that includes § 365(d)(3) is:

“Leasehold Management Bankruptcy Amendments Act of 1983.” Pub. L. No. 98-353,

98 Stat. 333, 361, 363 (1984).

-4-

the premises until a lease is deemed rejected. Great W. Savings Bank v. Orvco, Inc.

(In re Orvco, Inc.), 95 B.R. 724, 727-28 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1989), overruled by Towers

v. Chickering & Gregory (In re Pacific-Atlantic Trading Co.), 27 F.3d 401, 404-05

(9th Cir. 1994). Burival Brothers reason that the rent due is not an administrative

expense because it does not qualify under subsection 503(b)(1) of the bankruptcy code.

That subsection allows administrative expenses including those for “the actual,

necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate .” 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b)(1)(A). 

The bankruptcy code has a specific provision on unexpired leases of

nonresidential real property: 

The trustee shall timely perform all the obligations of the

debtor, except those specified in section 365(b)(2),

arising from and after the order for relief under any

unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such

lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section

503(b)(1) of this title.

11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3). Burival Brothers assert that this provision, among those

informally called “Shopping Center Amendments,”2

 should not control crop leases.

The bankruptcy court agreed with the decisions that find § 365(d)(3) ambiguous.

See El Paso Props. Corp. v. Gonzalez (In re Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc.), 283 B.R. 60,

66 n.9 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2002) (listing cases). The majority of cases hold to the

contrary, that § 365(d)(3) unambiguously provides that a debtor must perform a rent

obligation in full, until a lease is rejected. See id. at 66 n.10 (listing cases).

Appellate Case: 09-2483 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686371
-5-

This court agrees with the BAP that § 365(d)(3) is not ambiguous. The plain

language of § 365(d)(3) governs an “unexpired lease of nonresidential real property”

and excepts “section 503(b)(1).” See Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526,

534 (2004) (a statute that is plain must be enforced “according to its terms”). Rent

obligations in such leases must be performed when they arise after filing and before

rejection; any reduction based on subsection 503(b)(1) would violate the specific

language of § 365(d)(3). In re Pacific-Atlantic Trading Co., 27 F.3d at 404-05.

Burival Brothers must perform the December rent obligation whether or not it

preserves the estate. See HA-LO Indus., Inc. v. CenterPoint Props. Trust, 342 F.3d

794, 798-99 (7th Cir. 2003); Koening Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Morse Road Co. (In re

Koening Sporting Goods, Inc.), 203 F.3d 986, 989-90 (6th Cir. 2000).

Burival Brothers finally argue that the rent claim has no priority under the

bankruptcy code. See In re Burival, 406 B.R. at 556-57 (Kressel, J., dissenting). To

the contrary, § 365(d)(3) claims have priority status. Section 365(d)(3) expressly

preempts subsection 503(b)(1), but not the introductory authorization of

“administrative expenses” in § 503(b). The administrative expenses listed in the

subsections of § 503(b) – preceded by “including” – are not exclusive. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 102(3) (in the bankruptcy code, “including” is not limiting). Because § 365(d)(3)

claims have a status at least equal to a claim under subsection 503(b)(1), the BAP

correctly approved Pritchett’s claim as an administrative expense. In re PacificAtlantic Trading Co., 27 F.3d at 405.

 Even if it is an administrative expense, Burival Brothers assert the rent should not

be allocated evenly throughout the year relying on this court’s holding in Reiter v.

Fokkena (In re Wedemeier), 237 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir. 2001). The debtors in

Wedemeier filed for bankruptcy on June 8 but the trustee neither assumed nor rejected

the crop-land leases. They were deemed rejected on August 7. Id. at 940. No rent was

due between June 8 and August 7. Id. The debtors had missed a rent payment in

March (before filing bankruptcy) but still planted crops in May (also before

bankruptcy). Id. After filing, they continued to care for the crops. Id. This court

Appellate Case: 09-2483 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686371
-6-

found that the reasonable rental value of the property was an administrative expense.

Id. at 941. 

Unlike this case, in Wedemeier no rent was due during the period between the

filing for bankruptcy and the rejection of the lease. This explains why this court does

not even cite § 365(d)(3) in Wedemeier. Section 365(d)(3) is unambiguous and

requires payment, in full, of post-petition, pre-rejection rent obligations in unexpired

leases of nonresidential real property. The Wedemeier case is irrelevant here.

 The BAP’s decision is affirmed.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2483 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686371