Gill

Gill v. Stern

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 1377·317 F.3d 1111·2003 WL 230679·288 B.R. 1111·30 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1047
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 4, 2003Nos. 00-56431, 00-56526California4,602 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rawlinson, J.

David A. Gill, Bankruptcy Trustee (“Trustee”), appeals the district court’s de- *1113 cisión affirming the bankruptcy court’s order, which granted summary judgment in favor of the debtor Steven Stern (“Stern”). Stern cross-appeals the district court’s determination that Stern’s pension plan funds are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

Stern filed for bankruptcy after the entry of a sizeable judgment against him in an arbitration proceeding. We must determine whether the transfer of proceeds from an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) into a Profit Sharing Pension Plan was a fraudulent conveyance, subject to avoidance by the Trustee.

Constrained by our precedent, we AFFIRM the district court’s holding that, although the pension plan was properly included within the bankruptcy estate, the pension plan assets were exempt from distribution to Stern’s creditors.

I.

Background ■

Stern’s retirement planning commenced with the creation of a tax-qualified profit-sharing plan in 1974 (“1974 Plan”).

In 1978, Stern terminated the 1974 Plan and created a qualified, defined benefit pension plan (“1978 Plan”). In 1989, Stern terminated the 1978 Plan and transferred the…

Concurrence in Part

Alarcón, J.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part:

I concur in the majority’s holding that the funds in the Plan were not excludable from Stern’s bankruptcy estate. I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the funds in the Plan were exempt from distribution to Stern’s creditors under California law. I would hold that the Trustee presented sufficient facts to support an inference that Stern transferred funds into the Plan with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors. A fraudulent transfer is not exempt from distribution to creditors under California law. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.04 & 3439.05 (West 2002); Maddox v. Robertson (In re Prejean), 994 F.2d 706, 708 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, whether the Debtor acted with fraudulent intent is a question that should be determined after a trial on the merits and a determination of the credibility of the witnesses regarding Stern’s intent.

The Trustee presented evidence that on September 15, 1992, Dove Audio, Inc. (“Dove”) received an arbitration award of 4,585,000 dollars against Stern. Stern learned of the award on or about September 30, 1992. On October 22, 1992, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a writ of mandate to secure…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.