Summary:
I generally do not comment on motions and responses filed in bankruptcy cases. I usually wait for a judicial decision, both because that gives the dispute some resolution and because pleadings, by definition, present the parties’ competing positions rather than the court’s conclusions.
But when a towing company files bankruptcy and then asks the Bankruptcy Court to order someone else to give its vehicles back, the irony is a little too much to resist.
In re Ultimate Towing & Recovery, LLC, Case No. 26-31281 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.), may also be interesting for reasons extending well beyond that irony. The case brings together the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Chicago v. Fulton, the 2024 amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 7001, the adequate-protection rights of a secured lender, and—perhaps most importantly for North Carolina consumers—a rare opportunity for the Bankruptcy Administrator, regulators, and consumer attorneys to look behind the curtain at the finances and business practices of a substantial towing operation.
The immediate turnover dispute has apparently ended, at least for now: Ultimate withdrew its Motion to Compel Turnover. What is not apparent from the presently available record is why. The withdrawal could reflect a voluntary return of some or all of the property, a negotiated resolution between Ultimate and Carter Bank, or some other development.
Accordingly, the court apparently will not decide the Rule 7001 issue presented by Carter Bank’s objection.
The Chapter 11 case itself, however, is continuing, and that may ultimately prove more interesting than the turnover fight.
The Repo Before the Bankruptcy
Ultimate Towing & Recovery filed Chapter 11 on September 17, 2026. It describes itself as a North Carolina LLC engaged in towing, heavy-duty wrecking, highway-accident response, and truck-and-trailer hauling. Carter Bank & Trust is identified as its sole secured creditor. Motion for Turnover
According to Ultimate, Carter Bank repossessed fourteen vehicles in the early morning hours of the petition date. The equipment included dump trailers, tractors, heavy-duty wreckers, and a 2023 Kenworth W900 equipped with a 65-ton rotator. Motion for Turnover Ultimate alleged that the vehicles were essential to its operations, including highway-accident response, and that some were taken from employees’ driveways while those employees were on call. Motion for Turnover
The next day, Ultimate filed an Emergency Motion to Compel Carter Bank & Trust to Return Debtor’s Equipment and Personal Property, relying on §§ 541 and 542(a). Motion for Turnover
Ultimate proposed adequate protection of $42,500 per month, calculated at 8.5% annually on what it asserted was $6 million in appraised collateral value, together with replacement liens. Motion for Turnover
For consumer bankruptcy attorneys, that number invites an interesting comparison. In Chapter 13 cases in the Western District of North Carolina, Local Rule 3012-1(g) generally provides that adequate-protection payments made by the Chapter 13 trustee are calculated at 1% per month of the lesser of the plan value of the collateral or the total asserted claim, unless the court orders otherwise. On a $6 million collateral value, that would be $60,000 per month, or $17,500 more than Ultimate proposed—about 41% higher.
That does not mean the Chapter 13 local rule applies in Chapter 11. It does not. The Bankruptcy Code does not fix Chapter 11 adequate-protection payments in the same way that consumer Chapter 13 practice often effectively does. Section 361 instead allows flexibility through cash payments, replacement liens, or other relief intended to protect against diminution in the value of the creditor’s interest.
Still, the contrast is notable: in yet another example of corporations sometimes receiving more flexibility in bankruptcy than people do, Ultimate could propose $42,500 rather than being presumptively tied to the $60,000 that the local Chapter 13 formula would produce on the same valuation.
Carter Bank thought even $42,500 was far too little. It contended that Ultimate owned approximately 80 vehicles, only fourteen of which had been repossessed, leaving roughly 66 vehicles available for operations. It also argued that approximately $123,000 per month would be necessary to protect it from depreciation and diminution in value. Objection to Motion for Turnover Objection to Motion for Turnover
Those factual disputes may have been capable of resolution through evidence and adequate-protection negotiations.
But Carter also raised a threshold procedural objection that is worth remembering even though the motion was later withdrawn.
The 2024 Amendment to Rule 7001 Helps Consumer Debtors—Not Corporate Chapter 11 Debtors
Bankruptcy Rule 7001(a), as amended effective December 1, 2024, defines an adversary proceeding to include:
a proceeding to recover money or property—except a proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property to the trustee, a proceeding by an individual debtor to recover tangible personal property under § 542(a), or the other specifically identified exceptions.
The amendment created an important shortcut for consumer debtors. An individual debtor seeking recovery under § 542(a) of tangible personal property can proceed by motion rather than being forced to file an adversary proceeding.
That is a significant practical improvement for consumers. A debtor who needs a repossessed automobile back to get to work, earn income, and fund a bankruptcy case may not have the luxury of waiting through the slower adversary process.
But Ultimate Towing is not an individual debtor.
It is an LLC.
The exception says “individual debtor,” not merely “debtor” or “debtor in possession.”
Carter Bank therefore objected that Ultimate’s request for mandatory turnover of the fourteen vehicles fell within Rule 7001’s general requirement for an adversary proceeding and outside the new individual-debtor exception. Carter expressly asked that the motion be denied without prejudice to the filing of an adversary complaint. Objection to Motion for Turnover Objection to Motion for Turnover
Ultimate subsequently withdrew the motion, so the court did not have to decide the issue.
That means this case is not precedent holding that the motion procedure was improper. But the practice point remains: the 2024 turnover exception is expressly limited to individual debtors. A corporation or LLC seeking to recover property under § 542(a) remains subject to the ordinary adversary-proceeding requirement.
The Withdrawal Leaves an Interesting Question Unanswered
The withdrawal also makes the underlying factual resolution difficult to discern from the presently available record.
Did Carter Bank voluntarily release the fourteen vehicles?
Did the parties agree to different adequate protection?
Were some vehicles returned and others retained?
Was the dispute folded into negotiations concerning cash collateral or financing?
Or did some other development make the turnover motion unnecessary?
Without an order or other filing explaining the resolution, it would be inappropriate to assume any of those possibilities.
What can be said is narrower: the turnover motion was withdrawn, the court therefore did not resolve Carter Bank’s Rule 7001 objection, and Ultimate’s Chapter 11 continues.
Fulton Doesn’t Mean “Give It Back Immediately”
Ultimate’s motion asserted that Carter Bank’s continued possession was “in direct violation of § 542(a).” Motion for Turnover
Carter responded by pointing to City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. 154 (2021), in which the Supreme Court held that merely retaining property seized before bankruptcy does not itself violate § 362(a)(3). Carter also emphasized that turnover remains subject to the secured creditor’s right to adequate protection. Objection to Motion for Turnover
So the dispute was never as simple as “the trucks are estate property, therefore give them back immediately.”
Whiting Pools establishes the broader principle that property seized before bankruptcy can nevertheless become property of the bankruptcy estate. But the questions here included what procedure must be used to recover it and what adequate protection must be supplied before the secured creditor surrenders possession.
The withdrawal prevented those questions from producing a reported decision.
Sometimes Bankruptcy Has a Sense of Humor
The factual role reversal remains irresistible.
A towing company went into bankruptcy saying that fourteen of its vehicles had been taken from it.
It said it needed those vehicles to earn money.
It said continued detention of the vehicles was damaging its business.
And it asked a court to make the party holding them give them back.
Those arguments may have been perfectly legitimate.
They will nevertheless sound very familiar to consumers who have had their own vehicles towed and then discovered that they cannot get to work, cannot earn the money necessary to pay the tow and storage bill, and therefore cannot recover the automobile they need in order to earn that money.
Indeed, that practical problem was part of the reason Bankruptcy Rule 7001 was amended in 2024 to allow individual debtors to seek § 542(a) turnover of tangible personal property by motion.
There is therefore considerable irony in a corporate towing company attempting to employ the streamlined procedure created largely to help individual consumers recover their own repossessed property.
The motion has now been withdrawn, so we will not get a ruling on whether that procedural shortcut was available.
The text of Rule 7001(a), however, appears to provide the answer.
Bankruptcy Can Pull Back the Curtain
The withdrawal of the turnover motion does not diminish what may be the more interesting aspect of the case.
If anything, the continuing Chapter 11 may offer far more information than the original turnover fight ever would have.
Bankruptcy requires disclosures that privately held businesses ordinarily do not make publicly. For a towing operation, those disclosures could shed light on matters such as towing and storage fee structures; police-rotation, accident-recovery, consensual, and private-property towing; possessory liens and vehicle dispositions; governmental and private-property contracts; consumer disputes; related entities; and the allocation of revenue and expenses among different parts of the business.
Carter Bank’s Exhibit A gives some sense of the size of Ultimate’s operation, identifying a substantial fleet of rollback trucks, wreckers, rotators, tractors, trailers, construction equipment, service vehicles, and even military wreckers. Objection to Motion for Turnover
Once a company seeks the protections of Chapter 11, information about how that business operates becomes much more accessible.
Bankruptcy & Government Watchdogs Should Be Watching
There is no basis in the materials reviewed here to suggest that Ultimate Towing itself has engaged in the conduct alleged against A1 Towing, and nothing about filing Chapter 11 establishes wrongdoing.
But the recent A1 Towing case gives government watchdogs a good reason to pay attention to what this bankruptcy may reveal about towing practices more generally.
In February 2026, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson announced a judgment involving David Jewel Satterfield, A1 Towing Solutions, Inc., and Automobile Recovery and Parking Enforcement, Inc. The State had alleged racially targeted towing, illegal booting and towing, and price gouging, and the judgment required $30,000 to be paid to affected vehicle owners.
The consent judgment itself makes clear the importance of distinguishing allegations from findings: the defendants did not admit violations of law, and the judgment expressly provided that it was not an adjudication of such violations. 20CVS005504-910
The significance for Ultimate Towing is not that allegations against A1 can simply be transferred to another towing company. They cannot.
Rather, the A1 case illustrates that towing practices can raise significant consumer-protection questions while many of the facts necessary to understand those practices ordinarily remain inside privately held companies’ books, contracts, billing records, and internal procedures.
Bankruptcy changes that.
A Chapter 11 requires a degree of financial disclosure, reporting, examination, and judicial scrutiny that generally would not exist outside bankruptcy. That makes Ultimate Towing a potentially valuable opportunity for the Bankruptcy Administrator, the North Carolina Attorney General, and other governmental watchdogs to learn not merely about this debtor, but more generally about how a substantial towing operation in North Carolina actually works.
The questions need not begin with an accusation. They can begin with the business records.
How are towing and storage charges calculated? How much revenue comes from consensual towing, nonconsensual towing, storage, accident recovery, police rotations, and private-property towing? What charges are routinely added to an invoice? How frequently are vehicles held because owners cannot afford to retrieve them? What happens to those vehicles? What arrangements exist with law-enforcement agencies, municipalities, apartment complexes, HOAs, shopping centers, property managers, or other private-property owners? How are possessory liens enforced? What consumer complaints, refunds, chargebacks, lawsuits, property-damage claims, or regulatory inquiries exist? How are revenues and assets divided among Ultimate and related entities?
The Bankruptcy Administrator can pursue appropriate subjects through the § 341 process, requests for information, operating reports and other required disclosures, and, where warranted, Rule 2004 examinations. The Attorney General can follow the public docket and compare bankruptcy disclosures with information available from consumer complaints, governmental records, or other sources.
That could be useful even if the scrutiny ultimately uncovers nothing improper at Ultimate.
The broader value is that bankruptcy provides an unusual window into an industry whose practices are generally experienced by consumers one tow, one invoice, and one dispute at a time. The openness required in Chapter 11 may allow government watchdogs to see the economics, incentives, contracts, and procedures behind those individual encounters.
In that sense, Ultimate Towing could do something bankruptcy cases occasionally do particularly well:
pull back the curtain—not merely on one debtor, but on how an industry operates.
Consumer Attorneys Should Be Watching Too
The same is true for consumer bankruptcy attorneys, even if they never represent a creditor in Ultimate Towing itself.
The potentially valuable evidence is not what Ultimate’s own tow trucks or heavy equipment might sell for. It is what Ultimate’s records could reveal about the actual costs associated with repossessing, towing, storing, and disposing of consumers’ vehicles.
Those costs matter constantly in consumer bankruptcy practice.
When evaluating whether a Chapter 7 trustee would administer a debtor’s vehicle, the relevant question is not simply its gross value. What matters is what the estate would actually receive after the expenses of taking possession, towing, storing, securing, preparing, and selling the vehicle and paying the other costs of liquidation.
The same issue arises under the Chapter 13 best-interests-of-creditors test. Section 1325(a)(4) asks what unsecured creditors would receive in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation. A gross vehicle value that ignores the actual costs necessary to convert that vehicle into money can substantially overstate that hypothetical recovery.
Ultimate’s business records could provide useful real-world evidence of such expenses: towing and transport charges, daily and cumulative storage costs, repossession or recovery expenses, administrative charges, auction expenses, costs of securing and maintaining vehicles, delays between repossession and disposition, and other costs that reduce the net proceeds from liquidation.
Those records could therefore be useful in a seemingly unrelated consumer case. They might help establish that an apparently valuable vehicle would produce little meaningful benefit to unsecured creditors after liquidation expenses. In Chapter 7, that could support a request for or argument favoring abandonment of the vehicle. In Chapter 13, the same evidence could support a lower hypothetical liquidation value under § 1325(a)(4) and therefore a lower minimum distribution to unsecured creditors.
And the potential usefulness goes beyond dollars and cents.
This bankruptcy may also reveal practices and patterns of behavior by towing companies that are difficult for individual consumers to uncover when each dispute is litigated in isolation. Internal policies, invoices, contracts, correspondence, accounting records, and other business documents may show how storage charges accrue, what conditions are imposed before vehicles are returned, how disputed charges are handled, how liens are asserted, how long vehicles are held, and what practices recur across multiple customers.
That evidence could be valuable when an individual debtor later brings a turnover motion under § 542(a), disputes an adequate-protection demand, challenges towing or storage charges, or asserts other state or federal causes of action against a towing company.
And consumer lawyers need not necessarily wait passively for relevant information to appear on the docket. With sufficient standing and a legitimate bankruptcy purpose, a consumer creditor or other party in interest could seek a Rule 2004 examination of Ultimate Towing. Depending on the claimant and the issues involved, that could provide access to documents and testimony concerning towing, storage, repossession, lien enforcement, vehicle disposition, or other practices relevant both to that creditor’s claim and administration of the Chapter 11.
Rule 2004 is not a free-standing vehicle for conducting industry research; the party seeking the examination would need appropriate standing and a proper bankruptcy-related purpose. But where those requirements are met, this case could provide a rare opportunity to obtain systematic evidence that consumers ordinarily encounter only piecemeal.
So the value of watching Ultimate Towing is not primarily that its own fleet might someday be sold.
It is that the bankruptcy may expose the real economics and recurring practices of taking, holding, storing, and disposing of vehicles—information consumer bankruptcy attorneys routinely need but rarely have available in any systematic form.
The Larger Lesson
The turnover dispute ended without a ruling, so it should not be presented as a reported victory for Carter Bank or as a judicial determination that Ultimate used the wrong procedure.
Instead, it provides a useful practice point.
The 2024 amendment to Rule 7001 gave individual debtors a valuable new mechanism to recover tangible personal property under § 542(a) by motion.
It did not extend that shortcut to corporate or LLC debtors.
Carter Bank squarely raised that issue. Ultimate then withdrew the motion. We do not presently know whether the property was voluntarily returned, whether the parties reached some other agreement, or whether another development rendered turnover unnecessary.
So the Rule 7001 question goes unanswered in Ultimate Towing.
The bankruptcy does not.
And for consumer attorneys, the Bankruptcy Administrator, the North Carolina Attorney General, and other government watchdogs, that continuing Chapter 11 may ultimately tell a much more interesting story than who temporarily had possession of fourteen tow trucks.
Blog comments