Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IN RE TIGER

February 8, 1952

In re TIGER


The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARTSHORNE

The Referee herein ordered that the claim of Irving Krause, in the amount of $ 12,000, originally filed as a secured claim, be now filed, on his application, as a general claim, but 'subordinating the payment thereof until the claims of the other creditors filed and allowed have been fully paid'. Krause petitions for a review of this order, insofar as it provides for such subordination of his claim.

Pending these proceedings, but without having taken formal action therefor, the Trustee asked this Court to review the action of the Referee in dismissing the Trustee's counterclaim, to recover $ 3,000 cash received by Krause, out of the proceeds of a mortgage given by the bankrupt to Goldstein and Zimel, on the ground that same was a voidable preference.

 There is ample evidence to support the 'Findings of Fact' made by the Referee in his filed memorandum on the claim of Irving Krause, insofar as same describes the original formation of the Fairlawn Food Center, Inc. by Krause and Tiger, the bankrupt, with Krause furnishing the bulk of the funds, and Tiger the bulk of the management. Then, on July 21, 1948, when Krause and Tiger decided that Krause should pull out of the business and Tiger should purchase it from him, the parties went to Heyman Zimel and Harry Goldstein, Zimel being a lawyer, both to get the necessary money and the necessary legal advice to consummate the transaction. The transaction was arranged by taking the following steps simultaneously:

 (1) Krause transferred his stock in the corporation to Tiger (the present bankrupt).

 (2) The corporation gave a bill of sale to Tiger for all the corporate assets.

 (3) Tiger borrowed $ 8100 from Zimel and Goldstein, secured by a chattel mortgage in the sum of $ 9,000, on such assets.

 (4) Tiger paid $ 3,000 of this loan to Krause. This was on Krause's claim of Tiger's indebtedness to him for $ 15,500 based on (a) the original purchase of stock by Krause in the above corporation, (b) moneys advanced to Tiger, to help Tiger originally purchase some of such stock for himself, (c) an advance by Krause's brother-in-law to the corporation, and (d) certain advances from Krause, himself, to the corporation.

 (5) Tiger gave a chattel mortgage to Krause for $ 12,500 on the same assets, this amount being the balance claimed by Krause from Tiger, after the crediting of the above $ 3,000 payment on Krause's $ 15,500 claim. During the bankruptcy hearing, Krause admitted his understanding that his mortgage was subordinate to the Zimel-Goldstein mortgage above, though the mortgage itself does not so state.

 It is quite clear that Krause and Tiger proceeded to dispose of the assets of this corporation in complete disregard of the corporate entity, and of its creditors, and treated such assets as their own personal property. It is equally clear that Zimel and Goldstein were party to this transaction, if, indeed, they did not concoct its detail.

 November 15, 1948, within four months of such transaction, Tiger was adjudicated a bankrupt.

 Prior thereto, the Zimel-Goldstein mortgage was foreclosed, the assets it covered being bought in by them on the sale for a small amount. After the bankruptcy, the Trustee attacked the validity of such mortgage; and it was set aside in the State courts as invalid, Sickinger v. Zimel, 1950, 6 N.J. 149, 77 A.2d 905, because of its faulty affidavit of consideration. These assets were recovered, and now constitute substantially the assets of the bankrupt's estate.

 With these facts in mind, we approach the question as to the propriety of the order of the Referee subordinating the claim of Krause to those of the other creditors, consisting of (1) the general creditors of Tiger, (2) Zimel and Goldstein.

 As to the claim of Zimel and Goldstein, since they participated in the transaction upon which Krause's claim is now based, even if they did not concoct it, they can claim no general equities against Krause under Pepper v. Litton, supra. Nor does Krause's mortgage itself disclose any agreement that his claim should be subordinate to the other claim or mortgage. In the absence of proof of the latter mortgage, it is assumed, from counsel's argument, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.