United States v. Robinson (In Re Robinson)
764 F.3d 554
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- James Robinson was convicted of mail and wire fraud and ordered to pay two criminal restitution judgments totaling $386,875; he paid only a small portion and later filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
- Upon filing, Robinson’s assets (IRA, tax refund, three cars) became property of the bankruptcy estate; DOJ listed the restitution claim on Schedule F.
- The government sought a declaration that the bankruptcy automatic stay did not bar its enforcement of the restitution orders, relying on 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a).
- The bankruptcy court allowed relief from the stay only as to certain assets (IRA and two cars) and held § 3613(a) does not overcome the automatic stay as to estate property.
- The district court reversed, concluding § 3613(a)’s "notwithstanding any other Federal law" language superseded the Bankruptcy Code distinctions and allowed enforcement against estate property.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding § 3613(a) permits enforcement of restitution against property of the bankruptcy estate despite the automatic stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay bars government enforcement of prepetition criminal restitution against property that became property of the bankruptcy estate | Robinson: automatic stay protects estate property; § 362(b)(1) and § 541 vest estate property immune from collection absent court authorization | Government: § 3613(a)’s "notwithstanding any other Federal law" allows enforcement against "all property or rights to property of the person fined," including estate property | Held: § 3613(a) supersedes the automatic stay and permits enforcement against property of the bankruptcy estate |
| Whether 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) (criminal action exception) allows collection from estate property | Robinson: § 362(b)(1) applies only to actions against the debtor personally and does not reach estate property | Government: exception allows criminal enforcement and collection related to restitution | Held: § 362(b)(1) does not itself authorize collection from estate property; collection is authorized by § 3613(a) |
| Whether later-enacted MVRA and § 3613 conflict with earlier Bankruptcy Code priorities | Robinson: Bankruptcy Code priorities and stay should govern estate distribution | Government: MVRA and § 3613 reflect Congressional intent to elevate restitution collection and use "notwithstanding" to override conflicting laws | Held: Court gives effect to § 3613 and MVRA as a later, specific expression that permits enforcement despite Bankruptcy Code protections |
| Whether courts should treat property as estate property for bankruptcy but "property of the person" for enforcement under § 3613 | Robinson: allowing dual characterization undermines bankruptcy structure and protections | Government: § 3613 applies to property of the person fined regardless of its characterization under Bankruptcy Code | Held: Court rejects treating property as outside the estate for bankruptcy purposes; property is estate property but § 3613 nonetheless authorizes government to reach it |
Key Cases Cited
- Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Grp., 508 U.S. 10 (1993) (explains that "notwithstanding" clauses override conflicting statutory provisions)
- United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2010) (§ 3613(a) permits enforcement against retirement benefits despite statutory protections)
- United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. en banc 2007) (§ 3613(a) reaches ERISA-protected pension funds)
- United States v. Hyde, 497 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2007) (interprets § 3613(a) as superseding conflicting state law and bankruptcy protections)
- In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (discusses MVRA’s policy elevating restitution collection over bankruptcy distribution goals)
- Boys Mkts., Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970) (statutory structure can inform interpretation when reconciling laws)
- Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (later statutes can alter the implications of earlier statutes)