Court Opinion

ID: 9647251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:28:35.771597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:53.952596
License: Public Domain

MIXON, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by a majority of the panel and only disagree that Local Bankruptcy Rule 2003-1 of the Minnesota Bankruptcy Court is valid.
I agree with the majority that a local rule of bankruptcy procedure is valid “if it is consistent with the Bankruptcy Code in that it does not ‘abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right’ as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2075 and ... it is ‘a matter of procedure not inconsistent with’ the Bankruptcy Rules as required by Bankruptcy Rule 9029.” Industrial Fin. Corp. v. Falk (In re Falk), 96 B.R. 901, 904 (Bankr.D.Minn.1989)(en bane).
In my view the local rule in question is inconsistent with the bankruptcy rules. Not only does a literal reading of the local rule lead to the absurd result that occurred in this case, it changes the procedure regarding “adjourned” 341(a) meetings. The Bankruptcy Rule provides that the 341(a) meeting “may be adjourned from time to time by announcement at the meeting of the adjourned date and time without further written notice.” Fed. R. Bankr.P.2003(e). In this context, to adjourn is to suspend a meeting to a later time and place.
The local rule is inconsistent with rule 2003(e) because it requires the filing of a verified written statement that the 341(a) meeting is not concluded, in other words, that the meeting is adjourned. Under the local rule, the failure to file the required affidavit creates an irrebuttable presumption that the meeting was concluded, not adjourned, even though Rule 2003(e) clearly states an oral announcement of adjournment suffices.
Furthermore, the majority rewrites the local rule in order to make sense of it. In my view, this mild form of judicial activism is unwarranted. The plain meaning of a local rule, like that of a statute, “should be conclusive except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal application ... will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of the drafters.’ ” In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 932 F.2d 282, 287 (3d Cir.1991)(citing United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989)(quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Con*22tractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982))).
I am confident that the drafters of the local rule knew the distinction between calculating an event from the date of occurrence of the 341(a) meeting of creditors and the date first set for the 341(a) meeting because that distinction is expressed throughout the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. See, for example, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002(c)(chapter 7, 12 and 13 proofs of claim must be filed within 90 days after the first date set for the 341(a) meeting); Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004 (Debtor or Trustee may file proof of claim where the creditor failed to do so on or before the first date set for the meeting of creditors); Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004(a)(objections to discharge must be filed no later than 60 days following the first date set for the meeting of creditors). See, also, 11 U.S.C. § 702(b)(at the 341(a) meeting, creditors may elect one person to serve as trustee); In re de Kleinman, 172 B.R. 764, 770 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1994)(“when rule makers [want] to make that distinction [between the date first set for 341(a) meeting and the date of its conclusion] they have no trouble expressing it”).
The Supreme Court has admonished that “where, as here, the statute’s language is plain, ‘the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.’ ” United States v. Ron Pair Enter., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989)(quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)). Here we are dealing with an incorrectly drafted local rule that is much more easily amended than an act of Congress. I would declare Minnesota Local Rule 2003-1 invalid because it is in direct conflict with applicable rules of bankruptcy procedure and because it makes no sense as written. I concur in all other parts of the majority opinion and in the ultimate result.