Cutter v. Seror (In re Cutter)
- Summarized by John Marck , OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
- 14 years 1 month ago
- Citation:
- BAP No. CC-07-1436-MoDK (9th Cir. December 8, 2011) (not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Debtor was not denied due process when the Bankruptcy Court failed to provide him with counsel to be paid from the Trust. A claimant to disputed funds is not entitled to use such funds to underwrite his claim. Furthermore, right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal prosecutions. The Court also held that if there is not adequate consideration for the transfer of real property when it is transferred to a trust, the trust may still be considered “self-settled,” even if the property had no value when it was transferred to the trust.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from the opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the Debtor’s Inter-Vivos Trust was a “self-settled trust.”
- Facts:
- Edward Williams Cutter II (“Debtor”) filed for relief under chapter 7. Debtor, as the trustee of The Edward Williams Cutter, 2nd Inter–Vivos Trust dated May 23, 1998, contributed property to that Trust. Creditors argued that the Trust was a self-settled, irrevocable spendthrift trust designed to benefit the Debtor and that Trust Properties were property of the chapter 7 estate under California law and under sections 544 and 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court found the Trust to be “self-settled.” (Facts from lower cases not restated in opinion).
- Judge(s):
- ALARCÓN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
