Court Opinion

ID: 9523702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:45:57.337599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:21.672800
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
My difference with the majority is a small one. The majority holds that nearly all of plaintiffs’ malpractice claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate. I think it all does.
All legal services which gave rise to the malpractice claim, all advice on the form and nature of the petition, the drafting and signing of it, were completed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The majority salvages one part of the claim against one of the defendants by stating that the economic consequences of the challenged advice impacted after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. I disagree on both factual and legal grounds.
The majority states that the economic consequences of the alleged malpractice occurred after the filing of the bankruptcy petition. But even accepting plaintiffs’ legal theory they arose no later than with the filing.
Unlike the majority I think there is merit in Ford’s argument based on 11 U.S.C. section 541(a)(1) which states that a bankruptcy estate comprises “all legal or equitable interest in the debtor in property as o/the commencement of the case.” (Emphasis added.) The majority dismisses the wording of the statute, stating it is not “designed to defeat property interests which ... vest in debtors after they have attained post filing ‘fresh start’ status.” (Emphasis added.)
I think the line drawn by congress is significant because it indicates when congress believed the interests of the bankrupt stopped being assigned to the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. section 541(a)(1). The term “as of” suggests to me that congress was aware that claims be*141longed in the bankruptcy estate unless they arose after the filing of the petition.
I would affirm.
McGIVERIN, C.J., joins this dissent.