Rosen v. Dahan (In Re Minh Vu Hoang)
452 B.R. 902
Bankr. D. Md.2011Background
- Debtor Minh Vu Hoang filed a bankruptcy petition (chapter 11, then converted to chapter 7) in 2005; trustee appointed in 2005 continues.
- Pre-petition, Debtor concealed assets via >200 sham entities and paper transactions to impede creditors and taxes; entities functioned as alter egos.
- Post-petition, the Debtor and co-defendants purchased six properties using estate funds, title taken in the name of sham entities, and proceeds distributed to defendants as conduits.
- Properties involved: Parkway (Parkway) and Kenhowe; Sherwood; Bay Street; Sundown; Milbern; with interwoven transfers among Rokama, Maia, Dahan, Sarit Dahan, and related entities.
- Proceeds from sales/refinancing were partially paid down debts or distributed to defendants; at all times, plaintiff lacked knowledge or authorization for post-petition transactions.
- Plaintiff-trustee seeks turnover under 11 U.S.C. § 542(a); Defendants move to dismiss arguing § 542 applies only to pre-petition possessions per Deckelbaum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 542(a) permits turnover of post-petition property. | Hoang argues § 542(a) applies to property in possession post-petition. | Dahan group contends § 542(a) is limited to property in possession as of petition date. | § 542(a) claims are dismissed following Deckelbaum. |
| Whether Deckelbaum controls the § 542 analysis. | Trustee argues Deckelbaum is distinguishable and should not bind this Court. | Defendants urge Deckelbaum as controlling and dispositive. | Court follows Deckelbaum and dismisses § 542 claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deckelbaum v. Cooter, Mangold, Tompert & Chapman, PLLC, 275 B.R. 737 (D. Md. 2001) (post-petition transfers discussed; § 542 not the proper vehicle per court)
- In re 31-33 Corp., 100 B.R. 744 (Bkrtcy. E.D. Pa. 1989) (pre/post-petition transfer distinctions in § 542 context)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (statutory text and plain meaning guiding interpretation)
- In re Shearin, 224 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2000) (possession requirements under § 542 implicate post-petition control)
- Vogel v. Russell Transfer, Inc., 852 F.2d 797 (4th Cir. 1988) (trustee powers to avoid transfers generally addressed in § 549 context)