Opinion ID: 3170817
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence and Amount of Wages

Text: Deposited Into the Entireties Account First, the Wettachs argue that the Trustee failed to show the existence and amount of Thomas Wettach’s wages deposited into the entireties account. The bankruptcy court found that the Trustee proved deposits of $933,472 during the 16 lookback period. In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 512. The district court then rejected the Wettachs’ argument that this figure referred only to gross, and not net, wages. Sikirica v. Wettach, 511 B.R. at 767-68. We agree with the district court that these findings were not clearly erroneous and affirm. As to the existence of deposits, the Wettachs admitted in their answer that Thomas Wettach directed the deposit of his wages into the account. See App. 145 ¶ 24; 146 ¶ 26; 148 ¶ 36; 150 ¶ 51; 151 ¶ 55. These statements “are considered judicial admissions conclusively binding on the party who made them.” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1197 n.6 (2013) (quoting Am. Title Ins. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988)). Furthermore, Thomas Wettach even testified at trial that his law firm made these deposits. App. 333:6-:15. This evidence is sufficient to support the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the existence of deposits in the entireties account “is clearly established by the record.” In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 511. With regard to the amount of such deposits, the bankruptcy court relied on the Wettachs’ tax returns for the years 2001-2005 to find “potentially actionable deposits of $933,472” during the lookback period. Id. at 512-13. The record shows that the Wettachs reported on line 7 of their income tax returns gross wages of $376,358 in 2001, $202,122 in 2002, $365,305 in 2003, $242,597 in 2004, and $216,334 in 2005. See id. at 512. Furthermore, Bette Wettach testified at trial that she did not earn any income that she deposited into the entireties account during this period. See App. 375:10-:12; see also App. 332:9-333:5. In order to account for the Trustee’s burden of persuasion and the relevant lookback period, the bankruptcy court took one-half 17 of the strict pro rata amounts reported for 2001 and 2005. See In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 512 & n.12 (noting that only 79 days of 2001 and 287 days of 2005 fell within the lookback period). Based on these figures, the bankruptcy court found that the Trustee showed deposits of $933,472 into the entireties account. Id. at 513.1 The bankruptcy court’s method of calculation does not render this finding clearly erroneous. The Wettachs respond, correctly, that line 7 of their federal income tax returns reflects gross, not net, wages. However, as the district court noted, this fact also does not demonstrate clear error by the bankruptcy court. See Sikirica v. Wettach, 511 B.R. at 767-68. Schedule I to the bankruptcy petition reports average monthly payroll deductions of $8,500 per month, or an average of $408,000 over the four-year lookback period. App. 679. The Wettachs provide no basis for disputing the accuracy of these figures, which are eligible for treatment as judicial admissions. Cf. In re VanCleef, 479 B.R. 809, 824 n.13 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2012); In re Bohrer, 266 B.R. 200, 201 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2001). Even accounting for these payroll deductions, the record supports the district court’s conclusion that Thomas Wettach deposited $525,472 1 Our calculations, using the bankruptcy court’s own figures, indicate that there were $935,473.59 in alleged deposits over the lookback period. We attribute the discrepancy to some combination of typographical error and rounding. Regardless, because both figures far exceed the $380,253.87 in recoverable expenditures for non-necessities found by the bankruptcy court, In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 520, any error is harmless. Zolfo, Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam-Oster Co., 50 F.3d 253, 261 (3d Cir. 1995). 18 in net wages into the entireties account during the lookback period.2 See Sikirica v. Wettach, 511 B.R. at 767. Nevertheless, the Wettachs dispute this otherwise straightforward arithmetic exercise by reference to an exhibit (“Exhibit 23”), which they admit was not in the record at trial. See Appellants’ Br. 14. According to the Wettachs, Exhibit 23 supposedly includes data sheets showing “all deposits and withdrawals into and out of the PNC entireties bank account.” Id. at 6 (emphasis in original). These data sheets allegedly undermine the bankruptcy court’s findings as to the existence and amount of wages deposited into the entireties account. See id. at 17-18. Unfortunately for the Wettachs, Exhibit 23 is not in the record on appeal. The Wettachs argue that the parties listed Exhibit 23 in the Joint Pretrial Statement and included it in the Notebook of Plaintiff’s Exhibits before the bankruptcy court. Appellants’ Br. 14; Appellants’ Reply Br. 6-7. But under Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(2)(B)(iii), for an appeal in a bankruptcy case, “[t]he record on appeal consists of: the redesignated record [by the parties] . . . ; the proceedings in the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel; and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk under Rule 3(d).” Neither party designated Exhibit 23 as part of the record before this Court or the district court. See Wettach v. Sikirica, No. 2:13-cv-01822-NBF (W.D. Pa.), ECF Nos. 1-47, 2 Although the district court actually reports that there were “approximately $535,472 in [net] wages available for deposit into the joint account,” Sikirica v. Wettach, 511 B.R. at 767, the context of the decision suggests that the discrepancy is a typographical error. Cf. Metal Founds. Acquisition, LLC v. Reinert (In re Reinert), 597 F. App’x 139, 142 (3d Cir. 2015). 19 1-48, 10, 14. The exhibit was also not part of the “proceedings in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(2)(B)(iii). To the contrary, the district court references Exhibit 23 only in passing and otherwise appears to have entirely ignored the document. Cf. Sikirica v. Wettach, 511 B.R. at 766. The bankruptcy court’s brief mention of Exhibit 23 in its opinion is likewise inapposite. Cf. In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 511. We therefore affirm the district court on this issue.