Summary:
Two recent North Carolina bankruptcy decisions demonstrate that recovering unclaimed bankruptcy funds is no longer simply an administrative matter. Instead, disputes over court registry funds are increasingly involving competing claims, questions regarding exempt property, concerns over fraud, and heightened judicial scrutiny of third-party companies that specialize in recovering unclaimed funds.
In In re Brainard, Judge Laura Beyer considered whether creditors holding a nondischargeable judgment could intercept $35,000 in exempt homestead proceeds that had been deposited into the bankruptcy court's registry after the Chapter 7 trustee was unable to locate the debtor. The creditors argued that once the exempt proceeds had been converted to cash and deposited into the court registry, they lost their exempt status and became subject to collection.
Judge Beyer rejected that argument. The court concluded that the funds remained earmarked for the debtor and were placed into the registry solely because the debtor failed to provide a current mailing address. Depositing the money with the clerk did not alter ownership or transform the funds into property available for execution by creditors. The funds remained in custodia legis—held by the court for the specific purpose of eventually being distributed to the debtor. While the court acknowledged that exempt proceeds may not remain exempt forever, it declined to decide precisely when that protection ends, holding only that placement into the court registry did not eliminate the debtor's rights.
In re Foye presented a different issue. There, Chief Judge Benjamin A. Kahn addressed an application by a nationwide unclaimed-funds recovery company seeking payment of approximately $818 on behalf of a creditor, Northern Leasing Systems. During the proceedings, however, the bankruptcy court became aware of regulatory investigations involving Northern Leasing and purported corporate representatives who had executed the powers of attorney supporting the application.
After issuing a show cause order and conducting multiple hearings, Chief Judge Kahn ultimately denied the application. Although the court stated that it had not been presented with evidence establishing that Dilks & Knopik intended to deceive the court or knowingly participate in any wrongful conduct, it nevertheless required extensive document preservation, ordered the firm to retain any recovered funds, and directed cooperation with the New York Attorney General regarding its investigation into Northern Leasing. Those remedial measures underscore the court's concern that the integrity of the unclaimed-funds process must be protected even where intentional misconduct has not been established.
Commentary:
One point deserves emphasis before discussing these cases.
The federal judiciary encourages debtors and creditors to determine whether they have unclaimed bankruptcy funds. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, unclaimed funds frequently result from stale addresses, uncashed distribution checks, or recipients who simply cannot be located. The judiciary even maintains a nationwide U.S. Bankruptcy Unclaimed Funds Locator, allowing anyone to search for funds that may belong to them.
That is unquestionably a good thing. Money sitting indefinitely in the Treasury benefits no one except the government. Whenever possible, those funds should be reunited with their rightful owners.
Not surprisingly, however, the availability of those records has spawned an entire industry devoted to recovering bankruptcy unclaimed funds.
Many of these businesses undoubtedly provide a legitimate and valuable service. Numerous debtors and creditors would never realize they have money waiting for them absent these companies' efforts. Particularly where the recovery company simply locates the funds, verifies ownership, and prepares the necessary paperwork, everyone benefits.
The problem is that not every recovery effort is so straightforward.
In re Foye demonstrates why bankruptcy courts are beginning to look much more carefully at these applications. Rather than focusing solely on whether Dilks & Knopik intended to mislead the court, Chief Judge Kahn examined whether the supporting documentation was sufficiently reliable and whether appropriate safeguards had been followed. Even absent a finding of intentional wrongdoing, the opinion illustrates how easily recovery professionals can become caught up in fraudulent schemes involving forged powers of attorney, unauthorized corporate representatives, or inaccurate ownership information. Good intentions—or even the absence of bad intentions—do not eliminate the need for rigorous due diligence.
I also expect to see increasing litigation involving third-party recovery companies representing debtors, not merely creditors.
That raises a host of legal and ethical questions that have received relatively little attention.
For example:
-
Are some recovery companies engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by advising debtors concerning bankruptcy rights or preparing applications for filing?
-
More fundamentally, when assisting consumer debtors in recovering bankruptcy funds, do some companies qualify as Debt Relief Agencies under 11 U.S.C. § 101(12A)? That definition is surprisingly broad, encompassing "any person who provides any bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for the payment of money or other valuable consideration." Even more importantly, 11 U.S.C. § 101(4A) defines "bankruptcy assistance" far more broadly than simply providing "debt relief." It includes providing information, advice, counsel, document preparation, filing papers, appearing on behalf of another, or providing legal representation with respect to a bankruptcy case or proceeding. Depending upon exactly what services a recovery company markets and performs, some businesses may find themselves subject to the Debt Relief Agency provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, including its disclosure and conduct requirements.
-
North Carolina law may be similarly expansive. N.C.G.S. § 14-423(2) defines "debt adjusting" far more broadly than the traditional image of collecting monthly payments for distribution to creditors. The statute also reaches persons acting for compensation as intermediaries between debtors and creditors for the purpose of settling, compromising, or otherwise altering debts, including many forms of debt settlement and foreclosure assistance. Whether a particular unclaimed-funds recovery business falls within that definition will necessarily depend upon its specific activities, but practitioners should not assume the statute is limited to traditional debt management companies.
-
Do contingency-fee arrangements satisfy applicable disclosure requirements?
-
Where attorneys are involved, do some arrangements constitute improper fee sharing with non-lawyers?
-
Are there adequate procedures to verify identities and powers of attorney before court registry funds are released?
-
And, perhaps most importantly, are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent identity theft, forged powers of attorney, and other fraudulent recovery efforts?
As recovery businesses continue to expand, these issues are likely to receive increasing attention from bankruptcy courts, state regulators, Bankruptcy Administrators, United States Trustees, and bar disciplinary authorities.
Brainard likewise serves as an important reminder that court registry funds are not simply waiting for whichever creditor arrives first. The doctrine of in custodia legis exists for good reason. Property deposited into the registry remains under the protection and control of the court until distributed according to the purpose for which it was deposited. Merely placing exempt funds into the registry because a debtor cannot be located should not create an opportunity for creditors to bypass that process.
Taken together, Brainard and Foye suggest that bankruptcy courts are becoming increasingly attentive to protecting the integrity of unclaimed funds proceedings. As more debtors and creditors discover unclaimed funds through the federal locator and as third-party recovery companies continue to expand their business, courts will likely devote greater scrutiny not only to who is entitled to the money, but also to those who seek compensation for helping recover it.
For bankruptcy practitioners, these cases should be viewed as more than isolated disputes over relatively modest sums. They highlight an emerging area of bankruptcy practice where consumer protection, professional responsibility, fraud prevention, bankruptcy administration, and ethics increasingly intersect. I suspect we have only seen the beginning.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments