Court Opinion

ID: 9428967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:25:19.451243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:16.533694
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmun,
with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join,
concurring in the judgment.
This case concerns the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, 11 U. S. C. §101 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. V), and, in particular, the exemption provisions of § 522 of that Act. Specifically at issue is the effect of certain of these exemption provisions upon nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money obligations given by debtors to small loan companies before the enactment of the *83Act. The purported liens apply generally, not specifically, to property of the kind described and, as a practicable matter, there is nothing to prevent the debtor’s selling the property and replacing it or not replacing it, just as he chooses.
Section 522, for the first time, established a set of federal exemptions for individual debtors. Concededly, the section, as all similar statutes, was enacted to protect the debtor’s essential needs and to enable him to have a fresh start economically. Section 522(f)(2) permits the debtor to “avoid the fixing” of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in certain property, but the subsection does not extend to all property otherwise exempt under § 522(d). It is limited to certain personal items, such as household furnishings, wearing apparel, jewelry, tools of the debtor’s trade, and professionally prescribed health aids.
The Court naturally struggles with the question of the application of the new exemption provisions to obligations created before the new Act. It notes its concern with constitutional problems and it also greets with obvious relief the possibility of construing the Act as being only prospective in its operation. It then quickly pursues the latter route in order to avoid any constitutional issue.
I understand and can sympathize with the Court’s desire thus to resolve the case. It is usually much easier to construe a statute so as to avoid a constitutional issue than it is to resolve the constitutional issue itself. And, of course, the Court’s cases have announced that, where feasible, this is the preferred method. See, e. g., Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 577 (1978).
Were we writing on a “clean slate,” however, I would not pursue, in this case, that principle of construction-preference, for I think that the case would deserve consideration in greater depth. I see nothing in the statute with which we are concerned that speaks or hints of only prospective applicability, or that compels it, and I would find it necessary to reach the constitutional issue. I would then resolve that *84issue in favor of the debtor and against the small-loan-company creditor. I would do so because the exemptions in question are limited as to kinds of property and as to values; because the amount loaned has little or no relationship to the value of the property; because these asserted lien interests come close to being contracts of adhesion; because repossessions by small loan companies in this kind of situation are rare; because the purpose of the statute is salutary and is to give the debtor a fresh start with a minimum for necessities; because there has been creditor abuse; because Congress merely has adjusted priorities, and has not taken for the Government’s use or for public use; because the exemption provisions in question affect the remedy and not the debt; because the security interest seems to have little direct value and weight in its own right and appears useful mainly as a convenient tool with which to threaten the debtor to reaffirm the underlying obligation; because the statute is essentially economic regulation and insubstantial at that; and because there is an element of precedent favorable to the debtor to be found in such cases as Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978), and PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980).
But we are not writing on a clean slate. It seems to me that the case of Holt v. Henley, 232 U. S. 637 (1914), is precisely in point and, unless the Court chooses to overrule it, must control the present case. There, Holt and the eventual bankrupt signed an agreement in 1909 for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system on the property of the eventual bankrupt. The agreement specified that the system was to remain Holt’s property until paid for and that he was to have a right to enter and remove it upon failure to pay as agreed. Thereafter, but also in 1909, a mortgage deed was executed covering the plant and what was “acquired and placed upon the said premises during the continuance of this trust.” Id., at 639. Section 8 of the Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 412, 36 Stat. 840, amended §47a(2) of the then Bank*85ruptcy Act to give the trustee in bankruptcy, as to property coming into the custody of the bankruptcy court, the rights of a creditor holding a lien. Upon Holt’s debtor’s bankruptcy, the mortgagees claimed the sprinkler system.
Justice Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, observed that before the amendment “Holt had a better title than the trustees would have got” and that the Court was of the opinion “that the act should not be construed to impair it.” 232 U. S., at 639. He went on:
“We do not need to consider whether or how far in any event the constitutional power of Congress would have been limited. It is enough that the reasonable and usual interpretation of such statutes is to confine their effect, so far as may be, to property rights established after they were passed. . . . That is a familiar and natural mode of interpretation .... We are of opinion that [Holt’s title] was not affected by the enactment of later date than the conditional sale. The opposite construction would not simply extend a remedy but would impute to the act of Congress an intent to take away rights lawfully retained, and unimpeachable at the moment when they took their start.” Id., at 639-640.
The Court then ruled against the claim of the mortgagees because they had made no advance on the faith of the sprinkler system and were not purchasers for value as against Holt, and because removal “would not affect the integrity of the structure on which the mortgagees advanced.” Id., at 641.
Holt v. Henley thus also involved a pre-existing agreement, a subsequent change in the then Bankruptcy Act, and the Court’s preservation of the pre-existing right. I see no way to distinguish that case from this one, and I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals simply on the compelling authority of Holt v. Henley. See also Auffm’ordt v. Rasin, 102 U. S. 620, 622 (1881). I would much prefer to avoid in this way the dicta the Court enunciates with respect to “takings.”