Haskell v. Shigo ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    In Re: JOHN J. SHIGO,
    Debtor.
    FRANK B. HASKELL, III, Trustee,
    No. 95-1959
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN J. SHIGO,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-94-2717-AW, BK-89-997-4)
    Argued: June 5, 1996
    Decided: July 19, 1996
    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and
    MACKENZIE, Senior United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Lorraine Jeanette Rice, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for
    Appellant. Brian Richard Seeber, GINS & SEEBER, P.C., Washing-
    ton, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frank B. Haskell, III, Upper
    Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    On April 15, 1989, Dr. John Shigo filed a voluntary petition for
    relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101, et
    seq. Prior to this filing, beginning in 1985, Dr. Shigo suffered a rather
    unfortunate series of events. In 1985, Shigo separated from his wife
    and began divorce proceedings. In 1986, both of his parents died
    unexpectedly from carbon monoxide asphyxiation. As a result of
    these two traumatic events, Shigo became increasingly irresponsible
    with respect to his financial affairs and depleted his rather substantial
    assets by making large gifts to family and friends. In the spring of
    1987, Shigo abandoned his Bowie, Maryland medical practice and
    went on a "sabbatical" to Bermuda and India for a few months.1 In
    October, 1987, while visiting his daughter in South Carolina, Shigo
    was arrested and jailed for failure to pay alimony and child support.
    Upon release from jail, Shigo returned to his medical practice, only
    to discover that his associate, Dr. Sood, had changed the locks on all
    the doors. In January and May of 1988, Shigo attempted suicide and,
    after each attempt, spent approximately one month in the hospital for
    treatment related to manic depression. As a result, the Medical Board
    suspended Shigo's license to practice medicine. Dr. Shigo then filed
    a Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition in April, 1989 in the
    United States Bankruptcy Court in Rockville, Maryland.
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 When he left his practice, he entrusted his friend, J.P. Rickett, with
    his corporation's affairs, however, Rickett ultimately began diverting
    funds from Shigo's practice through his own business.
    2
    This action stems from Dr. Shigo's Chapter 7 proceedings, wherein
    Frank Haskell, III, the elected trustee, filed an Objection to Discharge
    under 11 U.S.C. § 727, on June 30, 1989.2 The Objection noted Dr.
    Shigo's irregular behavior and the lack of adequate explanation in the
    form of either documentation or testimony for the disappearance of
    certain categories of assets. The trustee specifically alleged assets in
    the form of jewelry, automobiles, furniture, Dr. Shigo's inheritance
    from his parents, and monies withdrawn from his pension plan. Based
    _________________________________________________________________
    2 11 U.S.C. § 727 -- Discharge
    (a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless--
    ....
    (2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a
    creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody
    of property under this title, has transferred, removed,
    destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to
    be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or con-
    cealed--
    (A) property of the debtor, within one year before the
    date of the filing of the petition; or
    ....
    (3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsi-
    fied, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded infor-
    mation, including books, documents, records, and
    papers, from which the debtor's financial condition or
    business transactions might be ascertained, unless such
    act or failure to act was justified under all of the cir-
    cumstances of the case; or
    (4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connec-
    tion with the case--
    (A) made a false oath or account;
    ....
    (5) the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before
    determination of denial of discharge under this para-
    graph, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet
    the debtor's liabilities; . . . .
    3
    on these factual allegations, the trustee has repeatedly argued that
    under § 727 Dr. Shigo is not entitled to a discharge in bankruptcy
    because he intended to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors by con-
    cealing his property. On July 25, 1991, Judge Stephen Derby of the
    United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland entered
    his Memorandum of Decision Overruling Trustee's Objection to Dis-
    charge, in which he held that none of the trustee's allegations were
    sufficient to support denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C.
    § 727(a)(2)(A) or (a)(4). The trustee appealed and Judge Norman P.
    Ramsey, by Order entered January 24, 1992, affirmed in part,
    reversed in part, and remanded the case, concluding that Judge Derby
    erred in failing to consider the trustee's objection pursuant to § 727
    generally, since the record established a prima facie basis for denial
    of discharge under both § 727(a)(3) and (a)(5). On remand, the Bank-
    ruptcy Court again reviewed the trustee's objections, consistent with
    Judge Ramsey's Order, and again overruled them. By Order entered
    August 15, 1994, Judge Duncan Keir granted the debtor's discharge,
    finding that he had met his burden of persuasion under (a)(3) and
    (a)(5), that his circumstances justified his failure to preserve records,
    and that his explanation of the loss of his assets was credible. The
    trustee appealed to the District Court and Judge Alexander Williams,
    Jr. affirmed the Bankruptcy Court by order entered January 26, 1995.
    It is well settled that findings of fact made in a bankruptcy proceed-
    ing will not be set aside by a reviewing court unless "clearly errone-
    ous." Due regard must be given to the fact that the bankruptcy court
    had the opportunity to hear witnesses and to assess their credibility.
    See Farouki v. Emirates Bank International, Limited, 
    14 F.3d 244
    (4th Cir. 1994). Such a presumption, however, does not apply to legal
    conclusions, and the court must make an independent determination
    of ultimate legal conclusions adopted by the bankruptcy judge on the
    basis of the factual findings, reversing only if they are erroneous. In
    Re Martin, 
    698 F.2d 883
    (7th Cir. 1983).
    The only real issues seriously pressed by the trustee in this appeal
    concern § 727(a)(3) and (a)(5). The trustee contends that Dr. Shigo
    failed to preserve records under (a)(3) and failed to satisfactorily
    4
    explain the loss of his assets, specifically the inheritance and pension
    plan withdrawals, as required under (a)(5).
    While the preservation of records is required under (a)(3), the stat-
    ute also provides an exception where failure to do so "was justified
    under all of the circumstances of the case." The Bankruptcy Court is
    vested with broad discretion in determining whether the records kept
    by a particular debtor are adequate, given the circumstances of each
    case. See In re Goff, 
    495 F.2d 199
    (5th Cir. 1974). Judge Keir specifi-
    cally found that Dr. Shigo fell within the exception provided in (a)(3)
    holding:
    . . . that given the fact that Dr. Shigo lived a rather itinerant
    life, to say the least, in 1987 and 1988, that he went through
    two very serious mental breakdowns in that period of time
    and was hospitalized for significant periods of time in the
    relevant period, that it is certainly justified under the cir-
    cumstances that he might not have a complete record of
    every personal financial expenditure of any significance
    during the relevant time.
    Judge Keir further found that Dr. Shigo had maintained an adequate
    record of his financial condition, even though he could not produce
    them, and that there was no evidence that Dr. Shigo had destroyed
    records with any intent to hide anything or done other than to cooper-
    ate.
    Whether Dr. Shigo's explanation of his loss of assets under (a)(5)
    was adequate and satisfactory is a question of fact, left to the discre-
    tion of the bankruptcy court. 
    Farouki, 14 F.3d at 251
    . Dr. Shigo's
    uncontradicted testimony was that he used his pension and inheritance
    to cover tax debts, wedding expenses for his children, college educa-
    tion expenses, and other personal living expenses and the Bankruptcy
    Court found this testimony to be credible. The huge reduction in his
    income, from $97,000.00 in 1986 to $4,000.00 in 1988, adequately
    explains the resulting insufficiency of his assets to meet his liabilities.
    The real question before this court is whether the debtor has an
    obligation under § 727 to reconstruct his entire financial history or
    just provide the trustee with the records he has, and, if he has none,
    5
    give an explanation as to why. We subscribe to the latter burden
    which Dr. Shigo has met in this case. It is clear from the record that
    Dr. Shigo furnished all records of his financial condition within his
    possession, including tax returns, to the trustee. While it is true, as the
    trustee points out, that Dr. Shigo could not provide a transactional
    record of his personal living expenses, § 727(a)(3) does not require
    that. That kind of detail is only required of business transactions and
    no issue concerning business transactions has been raised. Further-
    more, Dr. Shigo provided information which the trustee, if he had
    desired, could have utilized to obtain a more complete set of records
    from other readily available sources. The trustee chose not to do so.
    The purpose of § 727 is to require that a debtor deal fairly with his
    creditors by fully disclosing his financial condition. Dr. Shigo
    explained the transfers of all the assets sought by the trustee in such
    detail that the trustee was able to pursue most of them directly
    through fraudulent conveyance actions, some of which were success-
    ful. This case also presents a unique scenario in that the trustee has
    been familiar with Dr. Shigo's financial condition long before the
    bankruptcy petition was filed, through his involvement as counsel for
    Dr. Shigo's ex-wife--and number one creditor in bankruptcy--in
    their divorce proceedings.
    Regarding any lingering allegations of concealment, both the
    Bankruptcy Court and the District Court found that the transfers in
    question had taken place more than one year prior to the filing of the
    petition, that there was no evidence that Dr. Shigo continued to con-
    trol the assets in question, and that the trustee failed to prove other
    acts of intentional concealment within that year. Unless clearly erro-
    neous, these findings of the bankruptcy court must be accepted, par-
    ticularly when they have been affirmed by the district court. 
    Id. We agree with
    the District Court that the legal conclusions of the
    Bankruptcy Court in this case are supported by the record and that the
    factual findings are not clearly erroneous. The decision of the District
    Court is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-1959

Filed Date: 7/19/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021