Court Opinion

ID: 9451338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:14:21.745854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:40.374086
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result and in the opinion. But I think there is more than meets the eye as to earned annual leave. Granted that it is “property” that comes under the Trustee’s Strong Arm, just what are we doing about realizing its economic value for creditors?
One might assume that the Bankruptcy Court could order the Bankrupt to apply for annual leave. But will his superior grant it? And if he does, then what? Must the Bankrupt “take” this vicarious vacation — only to see the wife and children sit idly by at home while he neither works nor receives any pay? If he stays on the job and works to receive this post-bankruptcy wages with which to support his family, he is not at the same moment on annual leave. The result is that the only way for the creditors to realize on this value is to enforce post-bankruptcy idleness without pay for the period represented by accumulated annual leave. Required as it is in the name of law, one wonders in this twentieth century what has happened to the Thirteenth Amendment. What has happened to the policy behind the bankruptcy law that after discharge, one’s past economic derelictions are not to be visited on the debtor, and that with a clear conscience, head held high, the former bankrupt can look the world in the face? And for what length of time, what number of years, is the Bankrupt to face this crucial alternative — no recreational vacation or enforced idleness without pay? One year? Two years ? Five years ? What happens in the meantime to his employer’s — the United States Government — interest in his employment efficency? Worse, what happens to the bankruptcy system? Does this case remain open until such time as the Employee-former-Bankrupt makes the hard choice? Until he retires? Until he dies?
Perhaps the answer to these queries must be found in the good faith effort of all concerned to put a dollar valuation on this highly contingent property interest under a court-approved compromise. 11 U.S.C.A. § 50. Florida Trailer & Equipment Co. v. Deal, 5 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 567, 94 A.L.R.2d 638.