FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A pr il 11, 200 8 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S HAUNA E . S M I T H, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v . DA VI D R OC KETT; LI ND SEY WI L L I S

– ANDR E WS ; CL AR K & ROCKET T P C; ROCK P I LE LL C; A L L IE D P H Y S IC IA N S G R O U P IN C .; BR E NT D. S I E M E NS ; BR E NT D. SI EM EN S I N C; J ER RY J . D U N LA P, II, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6331

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O M A

( D . C . N o . 0 6

– C V – 4 9 2

– M ) N a n c yA . Z e rr (G a rv in A . Is a a c s w ith h e r o n th e b ri e fs ), G a rv in A . Is a a c s , In c ., O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antShauna E. Sm i th. J os eph B . M i ner , L i tt l e, M i ner& Pet er s en, O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, for D e fe n d a n ts-A p p e llee s D a v id R o c k e tt, L in d se yW ill is-A n d re w s, C lar k & R o c k e tt, P. C . , and R ock Pi l e, L . L . C . , and J ames A . Sl ayt on, O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, for D efe ndant s - A ppel l ees A l l i ed Phy s i ci ans G r oup, I nc. , B r entD . Si emens, I nc. , and B r entD . Si emens, and J err yJ . D ul ap, I I , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, for D efen d an t- A p p ell ee JerryJ. D u n lap, II. B efor e O’ BRI EN , M c KAY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.- 2-

M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff Shauna Sm i t h fi l ed a c i vi l compl ai nti n the di s tr i ctcourtal l egi ng a vi ol at i on of the Fai rD ebtC ol l ect i ons Pr act i ces A ct , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1692- 1692p, and var i ous s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant s . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d that P l ai nti ff l acked st and i ng t o fil e t his case becau se her C hap t er 13 ba nk rupt cycase w as s t i l l pendi ng att he t i m e of f i l i ng. Pl ai nt i ff a ppeal s t he di s m i s s al of her c o m p la in t fo r l a c k o f

s ta n d in g . P lain tiff a ss e rts th a t sh e first k n e w o f th e c a u se s o f

a c tio n a ss e rte d in th is compl ai nton M ay5, 2005. Pl ai nt i ff f i l ed herC hapt er13 bankrupt cypet i t i on on O ct ober13, 2005, and s he fi l ed thi s ci vi l compl ai nton M ay4, 2006. O n M ay19, 2 0 0 6 , th e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt d is m is s e d P la in tiff ’s b a n k ru p tc yc a s e w ith p reju d ic e . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the i ns t antcas e forl ack of s t andi ng on A ugus t11, 2006. Pl ai nt i ff s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on t o al t eroramend j udgm ent , w hi ch w as deni ed byt he di s tr i ctcour ton O ct ober2, 2006. Pl ai nt i ff t i m el yfi l ed her n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 .

“ W e re v iew q u e stio n s o f sta n d in g d e n o v o a n d c o n stru e th e c o m p lain t in favorof the pl ai nt i ff, acc ept i ng as t rue al l m at er i al al l egat i ons . ” C a tro n C o u n ty B d. of C om m ’ rs , N. M. v. U. S. F is h & Wi ldl i f e Ser v. 7 5 F . 3 d 1 4 2 9 , 1 4 3 3 (10 th C ir . 1996) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . St andi ng i s as s es s ed as of the t i m e the ac t i on w as- 3-

c o m m e n c e d . L u

ja n v . D e

fen d e rs o

f Wild lif

e , 5 0 4 U . S . 5 5 5 , 5 7 0 n . 5 (19 9 2 ). T he di s t r i ctcour t“di s m i s s ed thi s act i on s i m pl ybas ed on the fa ctthat [Pl ai nt i ff’ s ] bankrupt cycas e w as pendi ng atthe t i m e s he fi l ed thi s act i on and, cons equent l y , [P] l ai nt i ff l acke d s t andi ng t o fi l e i t . ” ( R . D oc. 61 at2. ) T he di s t r i ctcourts uppor t ed thi s deci s i on w i th ci t at i ons t o cas es hol di ng thatthe b a n k ru p t c yt ru s t e e i n a Ch a p t e r7 c a s e h a s e x c l u s i v e s t a n d i n g t o a s s e r tc l a i ms b e lo n g in g to th e b a n k ru p tc ye s ta te . See, e. g. , Vi dalv. D or alB ank C or p. , 36 3 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 9 , 2 2 (D .P .R . 2 0 0 5 ). S im ilarly , in th e ir b rie f o n a p p e a l D e fe n d a n ts c ite t o s ever al cas es i nvol vi ng C hapt er7 pr ocee di ngs and t o the s t atut or ypr ovi s i on defi ni ng t he dut i es of a Chapt er7 trus t ee, 11 U . S. C . § 704( a) ( 1) , i n s uppor tof t hei rar gum entt hatt he trus t ee i n Pl ai nt i ff’ s bankrupt cycas e had e xcl us i ve s ta n d in g to b ri n g th e in s ta n t c o m p la in t. H ow ever , Pl ai nt i ff’ s bankrupt cycas e w as br oughtunderC hapt er13, not C h a p ter 7 . In a C h a p ter 1 3 c a se , u n lik e a C h a p ter 7 c a se , the d e b to r re m a in s in p o s s e s s io n o f

th e p ro p e rt yo f

th e e s ta te . See 11 U . S. C . § 1306( b) . T he dut i es of a C h a p te r 1 3 tru s te e d iffe r f ro m th o s e o f

a C h a p te r 7 tru s te e , compar e 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 3 0 2 (b) w ith 1 1 U. S . C. § 7 0 4 ( a ) , wh i l e a Ch a p t e r1 3 d e b t o rh a s ma n yo f th e s a me ri g h ts a n d p o w e rs a s a C h a p te r 7 tru s te e , s ee 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 3 0 3 . B eca us e of thes e di ffe r ence s betw een Chapt er7 and C hapt er13 bankrupt ci es , t he fourci r cui tcour t s t o cons i derthi s i s s ue have al l concl uded thatI nexpl i cabl y , Pl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o di s cus s t hi s per s uas i ve author i tyi n her 1 fi l i ngs t o t he di s t r i ctcour tand i n herbr i ef on a ppeal , ci t i ng onl yt o O l i ck v . P arker& Pars l ey Petr ol eum C o. , 1 4 5 F .3 d 5 1 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), an d fa ili n g to cl ear l yexpl ai n how t hatcas e s uppor t ed herar gum entt hats he had s t andi ng.

- 4- C hapt er13 debt or s have s t andi ng t o br i ng cl ai m s i n thei row n name on behal f of t he bankrupt cy es t at e. S e e C ro sby v . Mo n ro e C o u n ty , 3 9 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 1 n .2 1 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); C abl e v. Ivy Tec h Stat e C ol l ege , 2 0 0 F . 3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 2 -74 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); O l i ck v . P arker& Pars l ey Petr ol eum C o. , 1 4 5 F . 3 d 5 1 3 , 5 1 5 -16 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); Mar i t i m e El ec. C o. v. Uni t ed Je rs ey Bank , 959 F. 2d 1194, 1209 n. 2 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); se e a lso A u to s, In c . v. G o w in , 244 F. A pp’ x 885, 899 ( 10th C i r . 2007) (c iti n g th is a u th o ritya n d c o n c lu d in g th a t C h a p ter 1 3 d e b to r h a d sta n d in g to pur s ue cl ai m on benef i tof es t at e) . “I tw oul d frus tr at e the es s ent i al purpos e of § 1306 t o gr antt he debt orpos s es s i on of the chos e i n act i on y etpr ohi bi thi m fr om pur s ui ng i tfort he bene fi t[of] t he es t at e. ” C a b le , 2 0 0 F .3 d a t 4 7 3 ; see also In re B ow ker , 245 B . R . 192, 200 ( B ankr . N . J . 2000) ( expl ai ni ng otherpr act i cal r eas ons w h yd e b to r ra th e r th a n tru ste e sh o u ld h a v e sta n d in g to p u rsu e lit ig a tio n o n b e h a lf o f C h a p te r 1 3 b a n k ru p tc ye s ta te ). T hi s concl us i on i s s uppor t ed byt he l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof the bankrupt cy pr ovi s i ons : “B ot h t he H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves and Senat e fl oorm anage r s of the U n ifo rm L a w o n B a n k ru p tc ie s , P u b . L . N o . 9 5 -5 9 8 (1 9 7 8 ), s ta te d th a t . . .

‘ al t hough Sect i on [323] i s nots peci fi ed i n s ect i on 1303, cert ai nl yi ti s i nt endedW e r ecogni ze that“debt ori n pos s es s i on” i s a t erm of artfound onl yi n t he 2 C hapt er11 cont ext . H ow ever , “the C hapt er13 debt orhas been c ons i der ed anal ogous t o C hapt er11, w hi ch gr ant s t he debt orful l author i tyas r epr es ent at i ve of the es t at e typi cal of a trus t ee. ” C a b le , 2 0 0 F .3 d a t 4 7 2 (c itatio n o m itt e d ); s ee C ampi on v. C r edi tB ur eau Ser vs . , 2 0 6 F . R . D . 6 6 3 , 6 6 9 (E . D . W ash . 2 0 0 1 ). Pl ai nt i ff a l s o appea l s t he deni al of herm ot i on fors ubs t i tut i on and mot i on 3 for the co urtt o take j ud i ci al no t i ce of D efen dan tD avid R ock et t ’s probate case foll ow i ng his death on A ug ust19 , 20 06 . T he d i stri ctcou rtheld that these m ot i ons w er e moot beca us e the courthad al r eadydi s m i s s ed Pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai nt fo r la c k o f

sta n d in g . B e c a u se w e re v e rse th e c o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f th e c o m p lain t, (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- t hatt he [Chapt er13] debt orhas the pow ert o s ue and be s ued. ’ ” O l i ck , 145 F. 3d at516 ( fi r s tal t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng 124 C ong. R ec. H 11, 106 ( s t at ement o f R e p . E d w a rd s); 1 2 4 C o n g . R e c . S 1 7 , 4 2 3 (sta tem e n t o f S e n . D e C o n c in i). R u le 6009 of the Feder al R ul es of B ankrupt cyPr ocedur e al s o s uppor t s the conc l us i on t hatt he C hapt er13 debt orhas s t andi ng t o br i ng a ci vi l compl ai nt : “W i th or w i t houtcourtappr oval , t he trus t ee ordebtori n pos s es s i on m aypr os ecut e orm ay enteran ap pearance an d d efen d an ypen ding act i on or proceeding b yor agai nst t he debt or , orcomm ence and pr os ecut e anyact i on orpr ocee di ng i n behal f of the estate b efo re a n ytr ibu n al. ” F ed . R . B an k r. P . 6 0 0 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 2 W e fi nd t his authori t ypersuasi ve. W e t herefore ho l d thatP l ai nti ff, as a C hapt er13 debt or , had s t andi ng t o fi l e thi s compl ai nton behal f of the bankrupt cy es t at e. B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d notaddr es s anyof the al t ernat i ve gr ounds fordi s m i s s al as s ert ed byD efe ndant s , w e dec l i ne t o addr es s t hos e i s s ues fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al , l eavi ng t hem for the di s tr i ctcourtt o cons i deron r emand. 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 w e vac at e the court ’ s deni al of thes e mot i ons and di r ectthe courtt o r econs i der t hem on re m and.

- 6- W e not e thatPl ai nt i ff’ s bankrupt cycas e w as di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce app roxi m at el yt w o w eeks aftershe fi l ed h er com plai nt i n thi s case. D efen dan t s’ ar gum entt hatt he di s m i s s al of Pl ai nt i ff’ s bankrupt cycas e pr ecl udes anyfur ther bankrupt cypr ocee di ngs m ayneed t o be addr es s ed i n the pr ocee di ngs on r emand, gi ven ourconcl us i on t hatPl ai nt i ff ha d s t andi ng i n hercapa ci tyas a C hapt er13 deb t or r at her than i n h er i nd i vidual capac i ty . W e con cl ud e t hat i tw ou l d b e best t o l eave t hi s ar gum entt o be cons i der ed i n the fi r s ti ns t ance bythe bankrupt cy c o u rt , if n e c e s s a ry. See In r e G ors ki , 766 F. 2d 723, 728 n. 4 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( ar gum ent , r ai s ed forfi r s tt i m e on appe al , thatbankrupt cycour tw oul d nothave author i t yt o r eopen c as e di s m i s s ed bas ed on debt or ’ s noncompl i ance w i th pl an “n ee d n o t be a n sw ere d h ere an d m ayb e p resse d o n rem an d ”). I f th e d istri ct co u rt d e c id e s th a t n o n e o f

th e a ltern a tiv e g ro u n d s fo r d ism iss a l as se rte d b yD e fe n d a n ts appl y , t he bankrupt cycour ts houl d det erm i ne w hetheri tw oul d be perm i s s i bl e and app ropri at e t o reope n P l ai nti ff’s bankrup t cycase. T he b ank rupt cycou rtm ayal so d e ter m in e w h e th e r sa n c tio n s w o u ld b e a p p ro p ria te fo r P lain tiff ’s a lleg e d fa ilu re to di s cl os e thes e ca us es of ac t i on i n herbankrupt cys chedul e. I f the bankrupt cy co u rtco n clud es th at th e b an k rup tcyca se sh o u ld n o t be re o p en ed , the d istri ct co u rt shou l d d et erm i ne w hether , as D efen dan t s ar gu e, P l ai nti ff p erm anen t l yl ost- 7-

pos s es s i on of thes e ca us es of ac t i on under11 U . S. C . § 554( d) beca us e s he fa i l ed to p ro p e rl ylis t th e m in h e r b a n k ru p tc ys c h e d u le . W e R EV ER SE and RE M AND .G r avi tas , digni tas , pi etas . 1 0 6 -6 3 3 1 , Sm ith v . R o c ke tt O ’ B ri en, J. , di s s ent i ng. T he maj or i t yhas as s embl ed an i m pr es s i ve l i s tof ca s es concl udi ng a C h a p ter 1 3 d e b to r h a s th e c a p a c ityto su e o n b e h a lf o f th e b a n k ru p tcy es tate w i t houtcourts upervi s i on. ( M aj or i tyO p. at4. ) Perhaps i ti s s hovel i ng s and agai ns tt he t i de, butI t hi nk w e s houl d do m or e than fi nd and fol l ow non- bi ndi ng c a se s. S u c h d e c isio n s a re a p p e a lin g o n lyto th e e x ten t o f th e ir p o w e r to p e rsu a d e . I a m n o t p e rsu a d e d a n d , thu s, d iss e n t.

1 T he comm on t hr ead i n t he ca s es ci t ed byt he maj or i tyr evea l s t w o bas es for c o n c lu d in g a C h a p ter 1 3 d e b to r h a s c a p a c ityto su e : leg isla tiv e h isto rya n d R u le 6 0 0 9 o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

B a n k ru p tcy P ro c e d u re . B u t th e leg isla tiv e h isto ryis u tterlya t o d d s w ith sta tu to rytex t an d th e R u le 6 0 0 9 ra tio n a le is m o re leg e rd e m a in t han r eas on. T hi s r es ul ti s contr aryt o the pl ai n l anguage of the bankrupt cycode and i s nots anct i oned bybankrupt cyrul es . A nd gi vi ng a C hapt er13 debt oran expans i ve r i ghtt o s el f hel p, i ndepende ntof and unt ether ed t o over s i ghtbyt he b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt , is u n w a rr a n te d a n d u n w is e . A . L eg isl ati v e H ist o ry A ll se e m to a g re e o n o n e th in g — th e b a n k ru p tcy co d e d o e s n o t ex p re ss ly gi ve a Chapt er13 debt orcapa ci tyt o s ue i n herow n name as a r epr es ent at i ve of t he es t at e. T hats houl d end the deba t e, butt he ca s es ci t ed byt he maj or i tyhaveT he onl yt hi ng w e know forcert ai n both H ous es of 2 C ongr es s ( and the Pr es i dent , i f he s i gned the l egi s l at i on) agr eed upon i s t he t ext . L egi s l at i ve hi s t or ycan ne ver pr oduce a “pel l uci dl ycl ear ” pi ctur e . . . of w hata l aw w a s “ in ten d e d ” to m e a n , fo r th e sim p le r e a so n th a t itis nevervot ed upon- oror di nar i l yeven s een orhear d- byt he “ in ten d in g ” law g iv in g e n tity , w h ich c o n sis ts o f b o th H o u se s o f

C o n g re ss a n d th e P re sid e n t (if h e d id n o t v e to th e b ill ). T h u s, w h a t ju d g e s b e liev e C o n g re ss “ m e a n t” (a p a rt f ro m th e tex t) h a s a d istu rb in g b u t en tirely uns urpr i s i ng t endenc yt o be w hat everj udges t hi nk C on gress m usth a v e m e a n t, i.e ., sh o u ldh a v e m e a n t. Zuni P ub. Sch. D is t . No. 89 v. D ep’ tof E duc. , 127 S. C t . 1534, 1556 ( 2007) (S c a lia , J ., d is s e n tin g ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). -2- r e a d s u c h a p r o v i s i o n i n t o t h e b a n k ru p t c y c o d e , i m p l e m e n t i n g , th e y s a y, co n g ression al i n tent. D o ing so ign o res the p ree m inen t can o n o f statuto ry cons t ruct i on— w e “pr es um e thata l egi s l atur e s ay s i n a s t atut e w hati tm eans and m e a n s in a s ta tu te w h a t it s a y s th e re .” C o n n . Na t’l B a n kv . G e rm a in , 50 3 U. S. 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 -5 4 (1 9 9 2 ). A re first p rin c ip les b e st h o n o re d in th e ir b re a c h ? It is p e r v e r s e l o g i c t o c o n c l u d e C o n g r e s s m e a n tw h a ti td i d n o ts a y. 2 “W hen t he w ords of a st atute ar e un am biguou s . . . t his fi rs tcano n is al so t he l as t : j udi ci al i nqui r yi s compl et e. ” Id . at 2 5 4 (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e c laim her e i s nott hatt he s t atut or yt exti s ambi guous , butt hatC ongr es s i onal s i l ence adds m eani ng t o w hatw as nots ai d. H ow , w i th no t ext , does one di vi ne s ub s i l ent i o m ea n ing ; byrefere n ce to structu re, co n text o r relat ed statu tory“[T] o det erm i ne the s cope of . . . § 1367, . . . w e mustexami ne the 3 s t atut e’ s t exti n l i ghtof cont ext , s tructur e, and r el at ed s t atut orypr ovi s i ons . ” Exxon Mobi lC or

p. v. A l l apat tah Ser vs . , Inc . , 5 4 5 U . S . 5 4 6 , 5 5 8 (20 0 5 ). -3- pr ovi s i ons ? N o; t he maj or i t yr etr eat s t o l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof the mostdubi ous

3 k ind ! T h e so u rc e o f

th e su p p o se d c o n g re ss io n a l “in ten t” c o m e s f ro m sta tem e n ts m ade byH ous e and Sena t e fl oorm anage r s , w ho conce ded the s t atut e does not gi ve a Chapt er13 debt orcapa ci tyt o s ue but , neverthel es s , s ai d C ongr es s i nt ended t hatr es ul t . ( M aj or i t yO p. at4. ) C l as s i c ip se d ixit . T hat2 of the 535 mem ber s of C o n g ress sp ea k fo r th e b o d yis co n tr aryto an o ther a cc ep ted c an o n o f statuto ry con struct i on ; st atutoryl ang uag e, no tem bell i shm ents byi nd i vidual l egis l at ors, con t rol s. See Ch r

y s l e rCo r

p . v . Br o wn , 441 U . S. 281, 311 ( 1979) ( “The r emar ks of a s i ngl e l egi s l at or , even the s pons or , ar e notcontr ol l i ng i n anal y zi ng l egi s l at i ve h ist o ry . ”). L eg isl ati v e h ist o rym igh t i n so m e ins tanc es in fo rm the s tatu tory cons t ruct i on debat e. T hi s i s nots uch an i ns t ance . I f i tw er e, t he hi s t oryw e have is w o rt h le s s . B . B ankrupt cyR ul e 6009 A debt or ’ s pot ent i al caus es of ac t i on become the pr opertyof the bankrupt cy e s ta te , a lo n g w ith a ll o f h e r o th e r a s s e ts , w h e n a C h a p te r 1 3 p e titio n is file d . See 1 1 U .S .C . § 5 4 1 (a )(1 ). T h e b a n k ru p tcy tru ste e , as re p re se n tativ e o f th e e sta te, is expr es s l ygi ven the ca paci t yt o pur s ue s uch ca us es of ac t i on bys ui ton behal f ofT h e b a n k ru p tc yc o d e s p e c ific a lly a p p lie s § 3 2 3 to c a s e s u n d e r C h a p te r 1 3 . 4 See 1 1 U . S . C . § 1 0 3 (a). W hen the s t atut or yt exti s barr en one ne ed onl yr eac h i nt o the j udi ci al t ool 5 box fora good pai rof “i m pl i er s . ” -4- th e e s ta te . See 11 U . S. C . § 323( a) , ( b) . T he onl yotherent i tygi ven s uch pow er 4 i s a “de bt ori n pos s es s i on. ” B ankrupt cyR ul e 6009 pr ovi des : “W i th orw i thout co u rtap p rov al, the trustee o r debtori n pos s es s i on m aypr os ecut e orm ayent eran ap p ea ran ce an d d efen d an yp en d ing ac ti o n o r pro ce ed ing b yo r ag ains t th e d eb tor, o r c o m m e n c e a n d p ro se c u te a n ya c tio n o r p ro c e e d in g in b e h a lf o f th e e sta te befor e anyt r i bunal . ” ( E m phas i s added) . C as es ci t ed byt he maj or i tyhave s ei zed upon t he “de bt ori n pos s es s i on” l anguage t o i m pl y a capaci tyt o s ue bya C hapt er 5 1 3 d e b to r. B u t a C h a p te r 1 3 d e b to r i s n o t a “ d e b to r i n p o s s e s s io n .” T h e te rm “ d e b to r i n p o s s e s s io n ” is a te rm o f a rt w ith lim ite d a p p lic a b ility. It is d e fin e d a n d u s e d in C h a p te r 1 1 (r e o rg a n iz a tio n ). See , e. g. , 11 U . S. C . §§ 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 7 . It i s a lso u se d in C h a p ter 1 2 (fa m ilyfa rm e r o r fish e rm a n w ith re g u la r i n c o m e ). See 1 1 U .S .C . § § 1 2 0 2 -0 4 . N o tab lyit i s n o t m e n tio n e d in C h a p te r 1 3 (i n d iv id u a ls w ith re g u la r i n c o m e ) o r C h a p te r 7 (l iq u id a tio n ). T he def i ni ng s t atut e pr ovi des : “I n thi s chapt er[ C hapt er11] - - ( 1) ‘ debt or in p o sses sion ’ m ea n s d eb tor exc eptw hen a pers on thathas qual i f i ed under sect i on 32 2 o

f this t i t l e is ser vi ngas trust ee i n the case . ” 11 U . S. C . § 1101( 1)T h e F e d e ra l R u le s o f B a n k ru p tc yP ro c e d u re u s e th is s a m e d e fin itio n . See 6 F e d . R . B a n k r. P . 9 0 0 1 (“ T h e d e fin itio n s o f w o rd s a n d p h ra s e s in . . . § 1 1 0 1 . . . govern t hei rus e i n t hes e rul es . ”) . T he bankrupt cycode makes cl eart he def i ni t i on fo u n d in § 1 1 0 1 a p p lie s to c a s e s u n d e r C h a p te r 1 1 n o t C h a p te r 1 3 . See 1 1 U. S . C. § 103( g) ( “Exceptas pr ovi ded i n [11 U . S. C . § 901] , [11 U . S. C . §§ 1101 t hr ough 1146] appl yonl yi n a ca s e under[C hapt er11] . ”) ; 11 U . S. C . § 103( i ) ( “C hapt er13 o f th is titl e a p p lies o n lyin a c a se u n d e r su c h c h a p ter .”); see also B L ACK ’ S L AW D I CTI ONARY 412 ( 7t h ed. 1999) ( defi ni ng “debt ori n pos s es s i on” i n the b a n k ru p tcy co n tex t as “ [ a ] C h a p ter 1 1 o r 1 2 d e b to r th a t co n tin u e s to o p e ra te its b u s in e s s a s a fid u c ia ry to th e b a n k ru p tc ye s ta te .” ). T he bankrupt cycour tcan, forgood caus e ori f i n the i nt er es t s of 7 c re d ito rs , re q u ir e a tru s te e b e a p p o in te d in a C h a p te r 1 1 c a s e . 1 1 U .S .C . § 1104( a) . Forexampl e, i n In R e L ow enschu ss , t he N i nth C i r cui taff i r m ed the a p p o in tm e n t o f

a tru ste e fo r c a u se u n d e r § 1 1 0 4 (a ) b a se d u p o n th e d e b to r in p o ss e ss io n ’s p re p e tit io n tra n sfe r o f a ss e ts f ro m P e n n sy lv a n ia to N e v a d a a n d h is m o v in g f

ro m P e n n s y lv a n ia to N e v a d a to a v o id th e ju ri s d ic tio n o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . 171 F. 3d 673, 685 ( 9t h C i r . 1999) . T he U ni t ed St at es T rus t ee i s t he appoi nt i ng author i t y , butm aynots erve as t he C hapt er11 T rus t ee. 11 U . S. C . § 1104( d) . T he U n ited S tate s T ru ste e e x e rc ise s a d m in istra tiv e a u th o ritya n d g e n e ra l o v e rsig h t in C hapt er11 cas es . 1 C OL L I ER ON B ANKRUPTCY ¶ 6 .0 1 [ 1 ][ c ], [ 4 ][ b ]. -5- ( emphasi s added) . Fr om t hatl anguage t w o thi ngs ar e cl ear : 1) t he def i ni t i on 6 appl i es t o C hapt er11 cas es , butnott o C hapt er13 cas es , and 2) even w her e the defi ni t i on appl i es t her e i s an exc ept i on— ther e ca n be no “de bt ori n pos s es s i on” w hen a trus t ee ha s been a ppoi nt ed. T ypi cal l yt her e i s no trus t ee i n a C hapt er11 cas e. 11 U . S. C . § 1104- 05; 7 C OL L I ER ON B ANKRUPTCY ¶ 1100. 06[1] . A t rus t ee 7 i s al w ay s appoi nt ed i n a C hapt er13 cas e. 11 U . S. C . § 1302( a) ; 1 C OL L I ER ON B ANKRUPTCY ¶ 1. 03[6] . E ven i f the def i ni t i on w er e t o be ext ended t o C hapt er13 cas es , i t s appl i cabi l i t yi s s w al l ow ed byt he exc ept i on. For m fol l ow s funct i on. A C hapt er13 cas e ( i ndi vi dual w i th r egul ari ncome)-6-

d o e s n o t p re s e n t a c ir c u m s ta n c e b e y o n d th e k e n o f a tru s te e . O n th e o th e r h a n d , a t rus t ee i s notfami l i arw i t h and perhaps l es s equi pped t o run a bus i nes s ( i ncl udi ng a fa rm in g o r fish in g b u sin e ss ) th a n th e b u sin e ss d e b to r. S o th e d e b to r is perm i t t ed t o cont i nue t o oper at e the bus i nes s as a “de bt ori n pos s es s i on” ( but un der cou rtsupervi si on and w i t h fiduciaryob l i gati on s t o the cou rtand credi t ors) w i t h t he goal of emer gi ng fr om t he pr oces s as a goi ng conce rn. Purpos e thus dr i ves t he r i ght s a “de bt ori n pos s es s i on” has been pe r m i t t ed underC hapt er s 11 a n d 1 2 . S u c h a d e b to r m a y“ p ro se c u te a n ya c tio n . . . in b e h a lf o f th e e sta te b e fo re a n ytrib u n a l.” F e d . R . B a n k r. P . 6 0 0 9 . A “ d e b to r in p o ss e ss io n ,” w ith l i m i t ed ex cepti on s, ret ai ns a llth e ri g h ts a n d d u tie s o f a tru s te e . See 11 U . S. C . §§ 1 1 0 7 (a), 1 2 0 3 . In th is cap ac ity , the “ d eb tor i n p o sses sion ” h as fidu ciary r es pons i bi l i t i es t o hi s cr edi t or s and i s admi ni s tr at i vel ys upervi s ed bythe U ni t ed S ta te s T ru s te e . See In r e Am er i cana Expre s s w ays , Inc. , 1 3 3 F .3 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A d d iti o n a lly , a c o m m itt e e o f c re d ito rs in a C h a p ter 1 1 c a se is a s s e m b le d to e n s u re th e c re d ito rs ’ i n te re s ts a re a d e q u a te ly re p re s e n te d . See 11 U . S. C . §§ 1102, 1103. A C hapt er11 “debt ori n pos s es s i on” i s unl i ke a Chapt er13 debt orw ho m e re ly “r e m a in [ s ] i n p o s s e s s io n ” o f a ll p ro p e rt yo f

th e e s ta te . 1 1 U .S .C . §11 U . S. C . § 1327 ( b) pr ovi des : “Exceptas otherw i s e pr ovi ded i n the pl an 8 ort he or derconfi r m i ng t he pl an, t he conf i r m at i on of a pl an ves t s al l of the pr oper t yof the es t at e i n t he debt or . ” W hethert hatpr ovi s i on i s s uffi ci entt o gi ve a C hapt er13 debt ort he ca paci t yt o s ue pos tpl an i s an open que s t i on. B uti tdoes n o t im p a c t th is c a s e b e c a u s e S m ith ’s p la n w a s n e v e r c o n fir m e d . S e e In re Sm ith , C as e N o. 05- 26930 ( B ankr . W . D . O kl a. 2005) ( D oc. N o. 32 fi l ed M ay19, 2006) (“ It is th e re fo re o rd e re d th a t co n firm a tio n is d e n ied a n d th e c a se is d ism iss e d w ith p rejud ice . . . . ”). -7- 1306( b) . I n a C hapt er13 cas e the trus t ee i s t he pr i nci pl e admi ni s tr at orof the

8 es t at e s ervi ng “the i nt er es t s of al l cr edi t or s pr i m ar i l ybycol l ect i ng paym ent s fr om debt or s and di s bur s i ng t hem t o cr edi t or s . ” In r e Maddox , 1 5 F .3 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 5 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 3 0 2 “ g ra n ts th e [ C ]h a p ter 1 3 tru ste e v a rio u s p o w e rs to ens ur e thats uch col l ect i ons and di s bur s ement s occurequi t abl y , acc or di ng t o t he di ct at es of C ongr es s . ” Id. T h e C h a p ter 1 3 d e b to r is lim ited to e n u m e ra ted rig h ts e x c lu siv e o f

th e tru ste e u n d e r 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 3 0 3 , n a m e ly c o u rt su p e rv ise d rig h ts to u s e , s e ll o r l e a s e p ro p e rt yo f th e e s ta te . See 1 1 U .S .C . § 3 6 3 (b ),(d )-(f), (l); s ee als o 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 (1 ); F e d . R . B a n k r. P . 2 0 0 2 . T h e p ra c tica l d iffe re n c e s in admi ni s t er i ng C hapt er11 and 12 ca s es on the one ha nd and C hapt er13 cas es on t he otherhand ar e i m por t antbeca us e theyexpl ai n w hyt he s t atut e l i m i t s “debt or i n p ossess i on ” t o C hap t er 11 an d C hap t er 12 cases. C . Pol i cy A l l ow i ng a C hapt er13 debt oran uns upervi s ed s el f hel p r emedym aybe vi s i t ed byuni nt ended c ons equenc es , even a bus e. I n A nders en v.-8-

U N I PA C - N EB H ELP ( In r e Anders on) , w e al l ow ed a s tudentt o es t abl i s h “undue har ds hi p” forpurpos es of 11 U . S. C . 523( a) ( 8) bys i m pl ys ubm i t t i ng l anguage i n a pr opos ed C hapt er13 pl an, des pi t e the fa ctR ul e 7001( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of B an k rup tcyP roc ed u re req u ir ed d eb tors to p rov e u n d u e h ard sh ip in a n ad v ersa ry pr ocee di ng. 179 F. 3d 1253 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . T hi s unfor tunat e pr act i ce, know n as “di s char ge- by - decl ar at i on, ” w as al l ow ed i n thi s ci r cui tfors ever al y ear s . O ther ci r cui t s r ecogni zed the pr obl em and r efus ed t o adoptthe A nders en h o ld in g . See Whel t on v. E duc. C r edi tM gm t . C or

p. , 432 F. 3d 150 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ; In re R u e h le , 4 1 2 F .3 d 6 7 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); In r e Hans on , 3 9 7 F .3 d 4 8 2 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); In re B anks , 299 F. 3d 296 ( 4t h C i r . 2002) . W e fi nal l yarr es t ed the abus e i n an en ba nc o p in io n . In r e Me rs n a mm , 50 5 F . 3d 10 33 (10t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( en b anc). T his case h as a ll the e arm ark s o f a n o ther A nders en . I f C ongr es s det erm i nes the r i s k of uns upervi s ed s el f hel p l i t i gat i on byC hapt er13 debt or s i s j us t i fi ed byoffs et t i ng benef i t s i ts houl d s ays o. J udges ar e i l l equi pped t o m ake s uch a pol i cy det erm i nat i on.