Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-00034/USCOURTS-ca10-04-00034-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 0
Nature of Suit: other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE JOHN A. CAMPBELL, JR. and

JUDY KAY CAMPBELL,

Debtors.

BAP No. EO-04-034

JOHN A. CAMPBELL, JR. and JUDY

KAY CAMPBELL,

Appellants,

Bankr. No. 03-73013

 Chapter 13

v.

WILLIAM MARK BONNEY, Trustee, 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

on behalf of the Department of

Agriculture Farm Services Agency

(“FSA”),

Appellees.

JUDGMENT

Filed August 27, 2004

Before McFEELEY, Chief Judge, NUGENT, and BROWN, Bankruptcy Judges.

This case originated in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern

District of Oklahoma.

The judgment of that court is REVERSED and REMANDED.

For the Panel:

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 1 of 8
* The parties did not request oral argument, and after examining the briefs and appellate record, the Court has determined unanimously that oral argument

would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 8012. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

of the Tenth Circuit

August 27, 2004

Barbara A. Schermerhorn

Clerk PUBLISH

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE JOHN A. CAMPBELL, JR. and

JUDY KAY CAMPBELL,

Debtors.

BAP No. EO-04-034

JOHN A. CAMPBELL, JR. and JUDY

KAY CAMPBELL,

Appellants,

Bankr. No. 03-73013

 Chapter 13

v. OPINION

WILLIAM MARK BONNEY, Trustee, 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

on behalf of the Department of

Agriculture Farm Services Agency,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma

Submitted on the briefs:*

Robert F. Groshon, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellants.

William Mark Bonney, Trustee, Pro Se.

Before McFEELEY, Chief Judge, NUGENT, and BROWN, Bankruptcy Judges.

NUGENT, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtors, John A. Campbell, Jr. and Judy Kay Campbell (Debtors),

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 2 of 8
1 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a); see In re Miller, 303 B.R.

471, 472 (10th Cir. BAP 2003) (order denying motion to convert is a “final”

order).

2 28 U.S.C. § 158(b)-(c); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e).

3 Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-554, 100 Stat. 3088 [hereinafter the “1986 Act”].

4 See 11 U.S.C. § 101(18) (defining “family farmer”).

5 1986 Act, Pub. L. No. 99-554, § 302(f); see 132 Cong. Rec. S15074 (daily ed. Oct. 3, 1986) (Sen. Thurmond).

6 See Pub. L. No. 103-65 (Aug. 6, 1993) (extended to Oct. 1, 1998); Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 149 (Oct. 21, 1998) (extended to April 1, 1999, effective Oct. 1,

1998); Pub. L. No. 106-5 (March 30, 1999) (extended to Oct. 1, 1999, effective

April 1, 1999); Pub. L. No. 106-70 (Oct. 9, 1999) (extended to July 1, 2000,

effective Oct. 1, 1999); Pub. L. No. 107-8 (May 11, 2001) (extended to June 1,

2001, effective July 1, 2000); Pub. L. 107-17 (June 26, 2001) (extended to Oct. 1,

2001, effective June 1, 2001); Pub. L. No. 107-170 (May 7, 2002) (extended to

June 1, 2002, effective Oct. 1, 2001); Pub. L. No. 107-171, § 10814 (May 13,

(continued...)

-2-

timely appeal a final Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern

District of Oklahoma denying their motion to convert their Chapter 13 case to

Chapter 12 because legislation authorizing Chapter 12 had expired at the time

conversion was considered.1

 The parties have consented to this Court’s

jurisdiction because they have not elected to have the appeal heard by the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.2

 For the reasons set

forth below, the bankruptcy court’s judgment is REVERSED and the matter is

REMANDED for further proceedings. 

I. Background

Congress enacted Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code in 1986, in response

to the “Farm Crisis” of the mid-1980’s.3

 Chapter 12, which provided debt

adjustment relief to “family farmers,”4

 was deemed an emergency remedy when it

was enacted and was set to expire on October 1, 1993.5

 Until January 2004,

however, that expiration date was continuously extended, making Chapter 12

viable for a period of approximately sixteen years.6

 Most recently, Chapter 12

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 3 of 8
6 (...continued) 2002) (extended to Jan. 1, 2003, effective June 1, 2002); Pub. L. No. 107-377

(Dec. 19, 2002) (extended to July 1, 2003, effective Jan. 1, 2003); Pub. L. No.

108-73 (Aug. 15, 2003) (extended to Jan. 1, 2004, effective July 1, 2003).

7 Pub. L. No. 107-377.

8 Pub. L. No. 108-73, § 2(b).

9 Id. § 2(a)(1).

10 Schedule I, in Appellants’ Appendix at 19.

11 Statement of Financial Affairs at 1, in Appellants’ Appendix at 22.

12 Unless otherwise stated, all future statutory references in the text of this Opinion are to title 11 of the United States Code.

-3-

expired on July 1, 2003,7 was reinstated retroactively on August 15, 2003 as of

July 1, 2003 under the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2003 [hereinafter

the “2003 Act”],8

 and then expired again on January 1, 2004.9 Chapter 12 has not

been reinstated since January 1, 2004, and, therefore, it has not been a source of

relief for new filers since that time. 

On August 4, 2003, the Debtors filed a Chapter 13 petition and a proposed

Chapter 13 plan. The Debtors, who state that Mr. Campbell is a “rancher”10 and

whose income is derived from the “[s]ale of cattle, sand, land lease and pecans,”11

could not have sought Chapter 12 relief on August 4, 2003, because Chapter 12

had expired on July 1st and the 2003 Act retroactively reinstating it had not yet

been enacted. Eleven days later, the President signed the 2003 Act into law,

restoring Chapter 12 retroactively to July 1, 2003.

In early September 2003, the Chapter 13 trustee (Trustee) moved to dismiss

the Debtors’ case because they had failed to provide him certain documents. The

United States of America, on behalf of the Farm Service Agency, also moved to

dismiss, claiming that the Debtors were not eligible for Chapter 13 relief because

their unsecured debt exceeded the limits set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).12 The

Debtors did not respond to either motion to dismiss. Rather, on September 18,

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 4 of 8
13 See Appellee’s Brief at 2-3.

14 11 U.S.C. § 1307(d) & (e).

-4-

2003, they moved pursuant to § 1307(d) to convert their Chapter 13 case to one

under the recently restored Chapter 12 (Conversion Motion). 

On September 30, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Debtors’

Chapter 13 case because they had not responded to the Trustee’s motion to

dismiss (Dismissal Order), but the Dismissal Order was set aside in October 2003. 

Shortly thereafter, in November 2003, the bankruptcy court issued a Notice,

scheduling the Debtors’ Conversion Motion for hearing on January 8, 2004. 

The bankruptcy court orally granted the Debtors’ Conversion Motion at the

conclusion of the January 8th hearing. Subsequently, however, it entered an

“Amended Order and Notice of Hearing,” vacating its oral ruling and continuing

the January 8th hearing. After the continued hearing, the bankruptcy court

entered its Order denying the Debtors’ Conversion Motion, holding that because

Chapter 12 had expired on January 1, 2004 and had not been reinstated, it had no

authority on January 8, 2004 to convert the Debtors’ Chapter 13 case to Chapter

12.

This appeal followed. No parties contest the relief sought by the DebtorAppellants. In fact, the Trustee, the only party other than the Debtors to have

entered an appearance in this appeal, requests that the bankruptcy court’s Order

be reversed.13

II. Discussion

Section 1307 authorizes bankruptcy courts to convert Chapter 13 cases to

Chapter 12 any time prior to the confirmation of a plan at the request of a debtorfamily farmer.14 The bankruptcy court held that on January 8, 2004, it lacked

authority to convert the Debtors’ Chapter 13 case to Chapter 12 under § 1307(d)

because Chapter 12 had expired on January 1, 2004. For the reasons stated

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 5 of 8
15 Pub. L. No. 108-73, § 2(a)(2)(B) & (b).

16 Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 149 (Oct. 21, 1998), amended by Pub. L. No.

108-73, § 2(a) (Aug. 15, 2003), quoted in 11 U.S.C. § 1201 (West), at 282.

17 Id., amended by Pub. L. No. 108-73, § 2(b) (Aug. 15, 2003).

18 Id.

-5-

below, we respectfully disagree.

On the day that the Debtors filed their petition, August 4, 2003, Chapter 12

had expired and, therefore, it was not a Chapter under which they could seek

relief. The 2003 Act enacted on August 15th, however, expressly reinstated

Chapter 12 retroactively to July 1, 2003, by amending §149 of title I of division C

of Pub. L. No. 105-277, a previous re-enactment of the Chapter.15 As amended by

the 2003 Act, the statute provided:

(a) Chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code, as in effect on

June 30, 2003, is hereby reenacted for the period beginning on July

1, 2003, and ending on January 1, 2004.

(b) All cases commenced or pending under chapter 12 of title 11,

United States Code, as reenacted under subsection (a), and all

matters and proceedings in or relating to such cases, shall be

conducted and determined under such chapter as if such chapter were

continued in effect after January 1, 2004. The substantive rights of

parties in connection with such cases, matters, and proceedings shall

continue to be governed under the law applicable to such cases,

matters, and proceedings as if such chapter were continued in effect

after January 1, 2004.16

The amendments made by the 2003 Act “take effect on July 1, 2003.”17 The

effect of the retroactivity provision was to make Chapter 12 relief available as of

the Debtors’ petition date, and the Debtors should have been able to avail

themselves of it, provided that they were eligible for such relief under § 109(f). 

As amended by subsection (b) of the 2003 Act, the statute expressly provided that 

“[t]he substantive rights of parties . . . shall continue to be governed under the

law applicable to such cases, matters, and proceedings as if such chapter were

continued in effect after January 1, 2004.”18 Thus, because this provision made

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 6 of 8
19 11 U.S.C. § 348(a).

20 See, e.g., In re Marcus, 1 F.3d 1050, 1051 (10th Cir. 1993) (exemption law existing on petition date, not conversion date applies); see also In re Sinclair, 870

F.2d 1340 (7th Cir. 1989) (Chapter 11 debtors could not convert their case to

Chapter 12 because Chapter 12 did not exist on petition date, and the 1986 Act

expressly states that it does not apply to cases filed prior to its effective date);

accord In re Howe, 913 F.2d 1138, 1148 (5th Cir. 1990) (same).

-6-

Chapter 12 effective as of July 1, 2003 through January 1, 2004, Chapter 12 relief

was available to the Debtors on the day that they filed their Chapter 13 petition in

August 2003, and, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to convert the Chapter 13

case to Chapter 12.

That the Chapter 13 Debtors sought Chapter 12 relief by way of conversion

does not alter our analysis–to rule otherwise would strip the retroactivity

provision in the 2003 Act of any meaning. Specifically, from July 1, 2003, when

Chapter 12 expired, until August 15, 2003, when the 2003 Act was enacted, no

Chapter 12 petitions could have been filed. Yet, the 2003 Act expressly states

that Chapter 12 was reinstated as of July 1, 2003. The only way that Chapter 12

could apply as of July 1, 2003, would be to allow cases filed under other Chapters

of the Bankruptcy Code from that day forward to be converted to Chapter 12. 

Furthermore, § 348, which governs the effect of conversion, states, in

relevant part, that: 

Conversion of a case under one chapter of this title to a case under

another chapter of this title constitutes an order for relief under the

chapter to which the case is converted, but . . . does not effect a

change in the date of the filing of the petition, the commencement of

the case, or the order for relief.19

This section makes clear that a debtor’s petition date is not altered by conversion. 

Accordingly, the law applicable on the petition date, not the conversion date,

applies to determine whether Chapter 12 relief is available.20 As discussed above,

by retroactive effect of the 2003 Act, Chapter 12 existed on the Debtors’ petition

date and, therefore, if they are eligible for such relief under § 109(f), they should

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 7 of 8
21 The record on appeal does not indicate whether the bankruptcy court reached the issue of the Debtors’ eligibility for Chapter 12 relief under § 109(f),

and this Opinion does not address that issue.

-7-

be allowed to proceed under that Chapter.21

III. Conclusion

The bankruptcy court’s Order is REVERSED and the matter is

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

BAP Appeal No. 04-34 Docket No. 46 Filed: 08/27/2004 Page: 8 of 8