Stratton C. Pollitzer v. Guy G. Gebhardt
860 F.3d 1334
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Debtor Stratton Pollitzer filed a Chapter 13 petition in March 2011, proposed a plan, and made payments for over two years before converting to Chapter 7 under 11 U.S.C. § 1307.
- After conversion, the U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss the Chapter 7 case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) as an abusive filing based on the means test; Pollitzer conceded he failed the means test.
- Pollitzer argued § 707(b) does not apply because his case was originally filed under Chapter 13, not "filed under [Chapter 7]."
- The bankruptcy court dismissed the case under § 707(b); the district court affirmed; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
- The panel evaluated textual, contextual, and statutory-evolution evidence and concluded Congress intended § 707(b) to reach cases converted to Chapter 7.
Issues
| Issue | Pollitzer's Argument | U.S. Trustee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 707(b) apply to a case originally filed under Chapter 13 and later converted to Chapter 7? | § 707(b) applies only to a "case filed . . . under [Chapter 7]," so it does not reach converted cases. | § 707(b)'s phrase "under this chapter" describes an "individual debtor" under Chapter 7; converted cases are subject to § 707(b). | § 707(b) applies to converted Chapter 7 cases; dismissal appropriate where means test shows abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Viegelahn, 135 S. Ct. 1829 (2015) (distinguishes debtor treatment under Chapters 7 and 13 and explains conversion mechanics)
- In re Witcher, 702 F.3d 619 (11th Cir. 2012) (discusses the textual evolution of § 707)
- In re Piazza, 719 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (explains Congress enacted § 707(b) to curb abuse by debtors with repayment ability)
- Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157 (1991) (principle against inferring exclusions when Congress expressly creates other exclusions)
- Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) (presumption Congress is aware of and adopts existing administrative or judicial interpretations)
- Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (2010) (observe pre-BAPCPA practice and avoid reading the Code to erode bankruptcy practice without clear indication)