From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Republic National Bank v. Crippen

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 30, 1955
224 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1955)

Summary

holding that the district court erred in refusing to hear the claims of certain creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, and explaining that "the denial of due process ... is never harmless error"

Summary of this case from Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Torchia

Opinion

No. 15303.

June 30, 1955.

John B. Stigall, Jr., Larry DeBogory, DeBogory DeBogory, Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

Thomas R. Hartnett, III, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and DAWKINS and DE VANE, District Judges.


Bankers Discount Corporation, hereinafter called debtor, is a finance company engaged in the purchase of instalment consumer papers from wholly owned subsidiaries, financing its operations by collateralizing such papers to commercial banks upon short-term notes. The debtor became financially involved and in April, 1953 filed its petition, pursuant to Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq., for an arrangement of its unsecured creditors.

Proceedings thereunder continued in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division with little or no successful progress until March 31, 1954 when certain creditors of the debtor filed a petition under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., for a reorganization of the corporation.

Appellee, Elijah Crippen, was duly appointed trustee of the debtor. Subsequently the trustee filed plans for the reorganization of the corporation. Appellants were holders in due course of collateralized notes of the debtor in substantial amounts and had prior to any of the proceedings in the District Court referred such notes to counsel for collection. The indebtednesses due appellants were adequately secured and it was not necessary for appellants to join in or consent to the plan for reorganization of the group. They did, however, agree to join such plan and were classified as secured Class 1 creditors.

Article 5 of the plan specifically provided that secured Class 1 creditors were to receive "in cash their costs, trustee's fees and attorney's fees in an amount to be allowed by the court but secured creditors shall not receive any penalty interest. The amount to be paid to secured creditors under this plan shall not be charged with any costs of court nor any other costs in connection with any proceeding."

Subsequent to the approval by the court of the plan of reorganization, appellants duly filed their proof of claim for their costs, trustee's fees and attorney's fees as authorized by Article 5 thereof. Appellee filed objections thereto and appellants thereafter filed motions to expunge the objections of the trustee from the record. When these motions came on for hearing the court heard statements of counsel with respect to the claim of appellant Republic National Bank and promptly announced his refusal to hear testimony with respect to said claim or any similar claims and announced his intention to refuse to allow any Class 1 secured creditor any amount for costs, trustee's fees or attorney's fees; whereupon the court promptly entered orders disallowing both claims involved in this case.

The specification of error relied upon by appellants in this court is the refusal of the trial court to allow appellants to introduce any evidence in support of their claims. Other specifications of error were assigned, but the above specification is the heart of the whole controversy.

While this proceeding presented a difficult problem of reorganization to the court and while the court was, in many respects, thoroughly familiar with the entire case when the claims of appellants came on before it for hearing, yet the court was without authority to disregard and ignore Article 5 of the plan which gave to appellants "their costs, trustee's fees and attorney's fees in an amount to be allowed by the court." The right to be heard on their claims was a constitutional right and the denial of that right to them was the denial of due process which is never harmless error. Philadelphia Company v. Securities Exchange Commission, 84 U.S. App.DC. 73, 175 F.2d 808; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Co., 227 U.S. 88, 91, 33 S.Ct. 185, 57 L.Ed. 431.

Despite the broad judicial discretion given the court to determine what, if any, costs, trustee's fees or attorney's fees should be allowed appellants, it was clearly error for the court to refuse to grant appellants hearings on their claims and for this reason the case is reversed and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

Republic National Bank v. Crippen

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 30, 1955
224 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1955)

holding that the district court erred in refusing to hear the claims of certain creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, and explaining that "the denial of due process ... is never harmless error"

Summary of this case from Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Torchia

holding that the denial of the right to be heard “is a violation of due process which can never be harmless error”

Summary of this case from Romano-Murphy v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv.

reversing district court's refusal, in bankruptcy proceeding, to allow creditor to present testimony on its proof of claim for costs and fees: “The right to be heard on their claims was a constitutional right and the denial of that right to them was the denial of due process which is never harmless error.”

Summary of this case from McNabb v. Comm'r Ala. Dep't of Corr.

explaining that the denial of the right to be heard is a violation "of due process which is never harmless error"

Summary of this case from McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Case details for

Republic National Bank v. Crippen

Case Details

Full title:REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS, Trustee, and Texas Bank Trust Company of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 30, 1955

Citations

224 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1955)

Citing Cases

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Torchia

But he did not, and it was therefore improper to require the Sutherlands to object to his conclusory demands…

Williams v. Warden, GDCP

"We have said that the complete denial of the opportunity to be heard on a material issue is a violation 'of…