In Re Alchar Hardware Co., Inc. & Knight & Wall Co., Inc., Debtors. Jeanette E. Tavormina, Tr. v. Alan D. Weiner, 759 F.2d 867 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Alchar Hardware Co., Inc. & Knight & Wall Co., Inc., Debtors. Jeanette E. Tavormina, Tr. v. Alan D. Weiner, 759 F.2d 867 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tippins Bank & Trust v. Jarriel (In re Jarriel), 518 B.R. 140 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2014)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 868 reversing a lower court’s administrative expense award to the debtor’s lessor for the debtor’s electrical utility deposit because it did not arise postpetition and not for the reason that the expense was incurred by the lessor on the debtor’s behalf4 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Tippins Bank & Trust v. Jarriel (In re Jarriel), 518 B.R. 140 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2014).published
    (reversing a lower court’s administrative expense award to the debtor’s lessor for the debtor’s electrical utility deposit because it did not arise postpetition and not for the reason that the expense was incurred by the…)
  • Firearms Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. (In Re Firearms Imp. & Exp. Corp.), 131 B.R. 1009 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1991).published
    As a general principle, “only those obligations of a debtor’s estate which arise post-petition ... are entitled to treatment as administrative expenses.” In re Alchar Hardware Co., Inc., 759 F.2d 867, 868-69 (11th Cir.1985) quoting In re B…
  • Am. State Bank v. Marks (In Re MacNeil), 102 B.R. 766 (9th Cir. BAP 1989).published 2 cites
    NOTES [1] "Administrative expenses" were given priority by Congress relative to other claims to estate assets because "the estate as a whole is benefitted if general [i.e., unsecured] creditors subordinate their pre-bankruptcy claims in or…
  • In Re Jeurissen, 85 B.R. 531 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1988).published
    Tavormina v. Weiner (In re Alchar Hardware Co.), 759 F.2d 867, 868-69 (11th Cir.1985).
At page 869 are entitled to treatment as administrative expenses.” In re Boogaart of Florida, Inc., 23 B.R. 157 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1982). See also In re Baths International,…1 citing caseopening of page *869 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • In Re Canoe Mfg. Co., 466 B.R. 251 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012).published
    See, e.g., Allen v. Chapter 7 Trustee, 223 Fed.Appx. 770 (10th Cir. 2007); In re Alchar Hardware Co., Inc., 759 F.2d 867, 869 (11th Cir.1985); see also, e.g., Fullman v. Postmaster General of U.S., 388 Fed.Appx. 89 (3d Cir.2010) (non-prece…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re ALCHAR HARDWARE CO., INC. and Knight & Wall Co., Inc., Debtors. Jeanette E. TAVORMINA, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Alan D. WEINER, Defendant-Appellee
84-5683.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 6, 1985.
Published opinion
759 F.2d 867
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29392
Arthur S. Weitzner, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., Timothy J. Norris, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, et al., Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellee A. Weiner.
Godbold, Krav-Itch, Hatchett.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The trustee in bankruptcy appeals a judgment in favor of Alan D. Weiner, lessor of debtor Alchar Hardware Company. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The trustee first contends that the lease between Weiner and Alchar was unenforceable because it provided for an unrestricted right of termination. . If so, this would defeat Weiner’s claim under 11 U.S.C. §§ 365, 502(g) (1982) arising from the trustee’s rejection of the lease. However, the lease provides for • termination only if the lessor decides to remodel, alter or demolish all or part of the premises, gives 60 days’ written notice, and returns any security deposit. This is enough to render the contract enforceable. Bossert v. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Inc., 404 So.2d 1138 (Fla.Ct.App.1981). Cf. Pick Kwik Food Stores, Inc. v. Tenser, 407 So.2d 216 (Fla.Ct.App.1981).

Second, Alchar’s security deposit under the lease was not a “special fund” that could not be offset against other debts owed Weiner by Alchar. The “special fund” doctrine precludes a bank from exercising a setoff against a deposit which is known by it to be dedicated to a special use such as meeting payrolls or paying taxes, In re Applied Logic Corp., 576 F.2d 952, 958 (2d Cir.1978), or financing construction, U.S. v. Butterworth-Judson Corp., 267 U.S. 387, 45 S.Ct. 338, 69 L.Ed. 672 (1925). Cf. Hanover National Bank v. Suddath, 215 U.S. 110, 30 S.Ct. 58, 54 L.Ed. 115 (1909). Moreover, the right of setoff against lease security deposits has been recognized before. See In re Pal-Playwell, Inc., 334 F.2d 389 (2d Cir.1964); S & W Holding Co. v. Kuriansky, 317 F.2d 666 (2d Cir.1963).

We agree with the trustee that Alchar’s electrical utility deposit with a local utility should not have been awarded to Weiner as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). The award was improper because “only those obligations of a debtor’s estate which arise post-petition ...[*869] are entitled to treatment as administrative expenses.” In re Boogaart of Florida, Inc., 23 B.R. 157 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1982). See also In re Baths International, Inc., 25 B.R. 538 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982); In re Coast Trading Company, 31 B.R. 674 (D.Ore.1983).

Finally, the supplemental pleading the trustee filed January 5, 1984 was not timely filed under Bankruptcy Rule 9023. Treating the pleading as a motion to amend the judgment, it was filed more than ten days after the judgment was entered on December 20, 1984.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.