Barrett v. Chreky (In Re Chreky)
450 B.R. 247
D.D.C.2011Background
- Married since 1987, Andre and Serena Chreky live and operate a DC salon; SPAC, LLC formed Sept. 1996 with 1% to Serena and 99% joint to both; salaries: Andre $520k, Serena $260k; money market funds and CDs held in joint and survivorship forms; deposits include two large bonuses to Serena deposited into joint accounts; Barrett and Thong hold large judgments against Chreky and his business; bankruptcy proceedings involve contested exemptions and asset classification.
- Deposits to the money market account included Serena's deposits of two substantial bonuses; CDs are in the names of both and some funds transferred to CDARS; a joint bank account is at Adams National Bank; a pending consideration is whether deposits were fraudulent conveyances affecting ownership.
- Bankruptcy Judge determined the accounts were held as tenants by the entireties and that Chreky and Serena could jointly own SPAC, LLC; Barrett challenges these holdings; district court reviews de novo the legal standards and reviews findings of fact for clear error; court reverses and remands on both main issues.
- Judgments against Chreky and his company Barrett and Thong are principal creditor claims; the outcome of these exemptions and ownership issues impacts the bankruptcy estate.
- On remand, the court will reconsider the tenancy by the entireties in light of proper presumptions and burdens of proof, and will determine actual membership and tenancy rights in SPAC, LLC.
- The decision also frames that the sole-depositor and donative-intent considerations must be evaluated with Imirie and Settle presumptions, and that the burden of proof lies with the party challenging or rebutting the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the money market account and CDs are held as tenants by the entireties. | Barrett argues the assets are not joint entireties. | Chreky contends assets are held as tenants by the entireties. | Remanded; trial court failed to apply proper standard and burdens. |
| Whether a married couple may be a member of an LLC under DC law. | Barrett contends a couple cannot be a single LLC member. | Chreky argues the couple can hold an interest as a tenancy by the entireties. | Remanded; DC law treats a couple as two people, not one entity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imirie v. Imirie, 246 F.2d 652 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (presumptions govern joint accounts; Imirie prerequisite burden on claimant)
- Settle v. Settle, 8 F.2d 911 (D.C. Cir. 1925) (presumption of tenancy by the entireties when property held jointly by spouses)
- Zyblut v. Roberts & Lloyd, Inc., 691 A.2d 635 (D.C. 1997) (explains Imirie and presumptions; joint accounts and donative intent)
- Morrison v. Potter, 764 A.2d 234 (D.C. 2000) (DC recognizes tenancy by the entireties with most common-law features)
- Wall's Estate, 440 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (marital unity concept; tenancy by the entireties depend on legislative abolition of unity)
- Edstrom v. Kuder, 351 A.2d 506 (D.C. 1976) (burden of proof in joint tenancy cases varies by context (stock certificates vs. bank accounts))
- Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1982) (certificate of deposit not a security; applies banking law to CDs)