510 B.R. 588
Bankr. W.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Movants seek to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. §1408/1412; case filed in Western District of Tennessee.
- Debtors Acor filed a Chapter 11 on Nov 13, 2013; domicile contested between Gatlinburg and Jackson properties.
- Related entities Smokey Mountain Developers, Mountain Vista, and Smokey Pines are involved; Smokey Mountain’s involuntary case was filed in the Eastern District.
- Acor’s assets and income are primarily in West Tennessee (UIS in West Tennessee; Jackson Property as a major asset).
- Gatlinburg Property and related interests potentially implicate venue considerations under §1408; the court must decide proper venue and whether transfer is warranted.
- Court concludes Western District of Tennessee is proper venue and denies transfer; alternative dismissal not reached because venue is proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under §1408 | Movants contend Eastern District proper | Acor argues Western District proper | Western District proper |
| Whether transfer under §1412 is warranted | Movants seek transfer for convenience | Acor oppose transfer | Transfer not warranted |
| Proximity and convenience factors for transfer | Movants rely on Eastern proximity | Debtors show West proximity dominates | Factors do not favor transfer |
| Economic administration of estate | Eastern District would improve administration | Administration best in West Tennessee | Economic administration favors West Tennessee |
| Impact of related proceedings on venue | Eastern case would affect Acors’ interests | Smokey Mountain sale has limited impact | No compelling impact to justify transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Gurley, 215 B.R. 703 (Bankr.W.D.Tenn. 1997) (analysis of venue factors and transfer discretion; domicile/residence concepts in Tennessee)
- Handel, 253 B.R. 308 (Bankr.D. Mass. 2000) (test for determining proper venue under §1408; five venue options)
- In re Micci, 188 B.R. 697 (S.D.Fla. 1995) (permissible venue based on 180-day look-back period)
- In re Broady, 247 B.R. 470 (Bankr.B.A.P. 2000) (alternative venue bases; lists multiple tests for venue)
- In re Ginco, Inc., 70 B.R. 2 (Bankr.D.N.M. 1986) (presumption of venue in filing district and transfer burden)
- In re Peachtree Lane Assocs., Ltd., 206 B.R. 913 (N.D.Ill. 1997) (transfer standard and burden of proof)
- In re Holiday Towers, Inc., 18 B.R. 183 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1982) (burden on movant to overcome presumption of proper venue)