You are here

Opinion 209

Case Name: 

C & C Co. v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank (In re Coal-X Ltd., "76")

Judge: 
U.S. District Court, Utah
Date: 
Oct-7-1986
Case Number(s): 
84PC-1914
Status: 

APPEAL
Unpublished
See 184.pdf

Body: 

Debtor was the sub-lessee of a 15-year lease to mine coal on real property located in West Virginia. In May 1984, debtor failed to make its annual rent payment for the first time and, shortly thereafter, filed a bankruptcy petition. Landlords in West Virginia have a statutory lien on any personal property brought onto their property by the lessee. Subsequent to debtor's sub-lease, debtor granted bank a security interest in its assets, the majority of which were located on the leased property. The bankruptcy court granted trustee's request to sell debtor's coal mining equipment free of liens, with valid liens to attach to the proceeds, and the equipment was sold. Later, trustee avoided the statutory landlord's lien on debtor's property, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 545, and the lien was preserved for the benefit of the estate by 11 U.S.C. § 551. Trustee then filed an adversary action against bank to determine the validity, priority, and extent of the competing liens. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court ruled that the landlord's lien had priority over bank's security interest, and that the annual rent payment would be apportioned from the date it was due to the date when the trustee rejected the lease and surrendered the real property. On appeal, the district court considered whether the amount of the landlord's lien was the entire annual missed payment, or whether it was subject to apportionment. The court held that it had the equitable power under the Bankruptcy Code to apportion the rent, even though the state statute may apply the rule of non-apportionment. The district court further held that, although the bankruptcy court had properly applied apportionment to the rent, it had not properly defined the apportionment period, which should have been from the rent's due date to the date the petition was filed. Postpetition, lessor is entitled to the reasonable value of debtor's use of the premises as an administrative claim. Finally, the district court ruled that the bankruptcy court erred in not adding interest to the landlord's lien amount, which was clearly provided by state law.

Internal Ref: 
Opinion 209
File: