Page 1 of 6 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

In re: ) 

) Bankruptcy Case 

TIFFANY BESTANI, ) No. 16-12768-BFK 

) Chapter 7 

Debtor. ) 

____________________________________) 

TRUSTEE’S OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY 

H. Jason Gold, the chapter 7 trustee (“Trustee”) for the above-captioned case, by his 

undersigned counsel, hereby files this opposition to the debtor’s Motion to Compel Abandonment 

of Property (“Motion to Compel”) (Docket Entry 30), stating to the court as follows: 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Debtor’s Motion to Compel is related to the Trustee’s efforts to sell Internet domain 

names by way of a quitclaim for $16,500.00. The crux of the Debtor’s argument is that the Trustee 

is unable to sell the Internet domain names and any interest in related litigation because the Trustee 

has already abandoned the estate’s interest in the aforementioned assets. In other words, the 

Debtor is arguing that the Trustee must now abandon an asset that he allegedly already abandoned 

when the case was closed. However, what the Debtor does not address is that not only did she fail 

to sufficiently describe the potential litigation in her schedules, but she and her attorney also failed 

to adequately explain the underlying claim when the Trustee inquired during the 341 hearing. As 

such, the Debtor is estopped from arguing that the Trustee has already abandoned an asset about 

which he was given incomplete information. Moreover, the Debtor fails to establish that the 

litigation interest she is requesting to be abandoned (which, according to her, has already been 

abandoned previously) is either burdensome to the estate or is of inconsequential value and benefit 

Case 16-12768-BFK Doc 35 Filed 11/29/17 Entered 11/29/17 10:35:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 6
 Page 2 of 6 

to the estate as required under 11 U.S.C. § 554(b). Notwithstanding the Debtor’s aforementioned 

arguments, whether the Trustee has any interest in the Internet domain names or litigation is 

irrelevant because he is seeking to sell the property by way of a quitclaim with no warranty of title 

or any other warranties. The Trustee is making no assertions as to any ownership rights in the 

assets. 

BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION

1. On August 11, 2016, Tiffany Bestani (“Debtor”) filed her voluntary petition under 

chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

2. On Schedule A/B of the Debtor’s petition (Docket Entry 1), the Debtor listed as an 

asset “Possible lawsuit that has not been pursued against former employer three years ago” with a 

value of $1.00. 

3. On December 7, 2016, Debtor received her discharge. 

4. On December 12, 2016, the case was closed. 

5. On September 29, 2017, the Trustee, upon learning of potential undisclosed assets, 

filed his Motion to Reopen Case (Docket Entry 16), which was granted by this Court on October 

24, 2017. 

6. The potential undisclosed assets consisted of various Internet domain names and 

accounts (“Property”). 

7. On October 31, 2017, the Debtor’s case was reopened. 

8. On November 1, 2017, H. Jason Gold was appointed as chapter 7 trustee. 

9. On November 1, 2017, the Trustee filed a Motion to Sell Domain Names Under § 

363(b) (“Motion to Sell”) (Docket Entry 23). 

Case 16-12768-BFK Doc 35 Filed 11/29/17 Entered 11/29/17 10:35:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 6
 Page 3 of 6 

10. On November 20, 2017, the Debtor filed an objection to the Trustee’s Motion to 

Sell (Docket Entry 29). 

11. On November 20, 2017, the Debtor filed her Motion to Compel, arguing that the 

Trustee must abandon the estate’s interest in pending litigation that the Debtor filed in California 

state court (“Pending Litigation”). 

12. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the 

Standing Order of Reference entered on August 15, 1984. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1408. This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (N), 

and (O). 

ARGUMENT

13. Section 554 of the Bankruptcy Code provides three methods by which property of 

the estate may be abandoned by a trustee. After notice and a hearing, property that is burdensome 

to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate may be abandoned by the 

trustee either on his own motion or by order of the Court at the request of a party in interest. 11 

U.S.C. § 554(a) and (b). But without notice and a hearing, and unless the Court orders otherwise, 

“any property scheduled under section 521(a)(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time 

of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of 

this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). 

14. In her motion, the Debtor provides no evidence to support a finding that the pending 

litigation is burdensome to the estate or is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate. 

Instead, the Debtor argues that the Trustee has already abandoned the Pending Litigation under § 

554(c). 

Case 16-12768-BFK Doc 35 Filed 11/29/17 Entered 11/29/17 10:35:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 6
 Page 4 of 6 

15. On Schedule A/B of the Debtor’s petition (Docket Entry 1), the Debtor listed as an 

asset “Possible lawsuit that has not been pursued against former employer three years ago” with a 

value of $1.00. 

16. When the Trustee inquired about the litigation at the 341 hearing, the Debtor 

described the potential litigation as a simple claim for unpaid wages of approximately $12,000.00 

from a company that “didn’t have the money.” See Debtor’s Exhibit 1, Transcript of 341 Meeting, 

p. 8, lines 7-20. Deeming it to be of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate based on the 

information provided by the Debtor, the Trustee statutorily abandoned the assets. See id. at p. 9, 

lines 1-2. 

17. However, based on the state court complaint the Debtor filed shortly after her case 

was closed, the Pending Litigation is more than just a claim for unpaid wages. Rather, the Debtor, 

in addition to $12,000.00, is also seeking revenue sharing payments from the operation of a website 

from April 2013 to present and 12% of the gross revenues in perpetuity. See Debtor’s Exhibit 2, 

Verified First Amended Complaint, p. 16, lines 1-5. In the complaint, the Debtor describes the 

domain name at issue as a “major revenue generating opportunity.” Id. at p. 13, lines 1-2. 

18. For property to be successfully abandoned, the Court must make a formal 

determination of abandonment or, alternatively, “the property deemed abandoned has to be so 

explicitly identified in the schedules as to be able to impute an intent to abandon.” In re Schmid, 

54 B.R. 78, 80 (Bankr. D. Or. 1985) (“Where an apparent no asset case is routinely closed by the 

Court without the notice to creditors otherwise required by Bankr. R. 2002 and 6007, 11 U.S.C. § 

554(c) does not inject the element of gamesmanship relied on here by the debtor to trap the unwary 

trustee and inadvertently deny creditors the benefit of a substantial asset.”); see also In re Shelton, 

201 B.R. 147, 155 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1996) (stating the court’s concern that the chapter 7 trustee 

Case 16-12768-BFK Doc 35 Filed 11/29/17 Entered 11/29/17 10:35:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 6
 Page 5 of 6 

may not have been afforded the ability to make an informed decision about administering property 

due to incomplete information in debtor’s schedules). 

19. Given the insufficient manner in which the Pending Litigation was scheduled and 

the failure of the Debtor or her attorney to otherwise adequately bring this claim to the Trustee’s 

attention before the case was closed, the Trustee never abandoned any interest he may have had in 

the Pending Litigation. 

20. Notwithstanding any interest the Trustee may or may not have in the Pending 

Litigation, as explained in the Trustee’s Motion to Sell, the Trustee is seeking to sell the Property 

by way of a quitclaim with no warranty of title or any other warranties. Trustee is making no 

assertions as to any ownership rights in the Property. Instead, he is seeking to convey to the 

purchaser any interest he may or may not have in the Property in exchange for $16,500.00 to be 

distributed to creditors who otherwise received nothing from the Debtor’s case. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that this Court enter an order: (i) denying 

the Debtor’s Motion to Compel and (ii) granting such other and further relief as the Court may 

deem just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

H. JASON GOLD, TRUSTEE 

By Counsel 

Case 16-12768-BFK Doc 35 Filed 11/29/17 Entered 11/29/17 10:35:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 6
 Page 6 of 6 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 

101 Constitution Avenue, NW / Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20001 

Tel: 202.712.2800 

Fax: 202.712.2860 

By: /s/ David M. Barnes, Jr. 

H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No. 19117 

David M. Barnes, Jr., Va. Bar No. 86747 

Counsel to the Chapter 7 Trustee 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of November 2017, the foregoing opposition 

was served via first class mail, postage prepaid, to: 

Office of the United States Trustee 

115 South Union St., Suite 210 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

Robert Sergio Brandt 

The Law Office of Robert S. Brandt 

1513 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Counsel to the Debtor

/s/ David M. Barnes, Jr. 

David M. Barnes, Jr. 

Case 16-12768-BFK Doc 35 Filed 11/29/17 Entered 11/29/17 10:35:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 6