{"id":4652,"date":"2025-03-13T02:25:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T02:25:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/bankruptcy-dismissal-for-cause-loss-or-diminution\/"},"modified":"2025-03-13T02:25:00","modified_gmt":"2025-03-13T02:25:00","slug":"bankruptcy-dismissal-for-cause-loss-or-diminution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/bankruptcy-dismissal-for-cause-loss-or-diminution\/","title":{"rendered":"Bankruptcy \u2013 Dismissal for cause \u2013 Loss or diminution"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
Listen to this article<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Where a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge dismissed a Chapter 12 case on the basis of \u201ccontinuing loss to or diminution of the estate\u201d and no \u201creasonable likelihood of rehabilitation\u201d under 11 U.S.C. \u00a71208(c)(9), the dismissal order must be vacated because the court applied the wrong legal standard to identify the existence of loss to or diminution of the estate.\n<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bankruptcy court granted a motion to dismiss the chapter 12 case of Las Martas, Inc. for cause. In so doing, the court determined that there was \u2018continuing loss to or diminution of the estate\u2019 and no \u2018reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation\u2019 under 11 U.S.C. \u00a71208(c)(9). On appeal, the debtor contends that the court applied the wrong legal standard to identify the existence of loss to or diminution of the estate. We agree and therefore vacate the dismissal order and remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. \u2026\n<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 As discussed below, the bankruptcy case underlying this appeal is the debtor\u2019s third in an 11-year period. The [Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR)] secured claim \u2014 which was eventually transferred to Condado 5, LLC \u2014 featured prominently in each case. \u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cThe contours of the concept of \u2018loss to or diminution of the estate\u2019 may be debatable in a different context. However, the relevant time frame for measuring loss or diminution is less elusive. Because this appeal squarely presents that temporal question, we begin (and end) our analysis there. The debtor contends that the bankruptcy court committed reversible error by comparing the condition of the estates in the first and second cases with the condition of the estate in the third case when testing for loss or diminution under \u00a71208(c)(9). Condado insists that the court appropriately employed a holistic, retrospective lens when applying that particular statute. We agree with the debtor.\n<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen assaying loss or diminution under \u00a71208(c)(9), the relevant facts and circumstances are those existing after the petition date. \u2026\n<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 In focusing on the first and second cases, the court neglected to account for the post-petition payments into the court\u2019s registry in the third case, or to make a meaningful evaluation of all of the assets and liabilities of the estate in the third case. The heart of the court\u2019s analysis consisted of a comparison of the financial condition of the estate in this case with the financial condition of the debtor in its prior cases. \u2026 At the time the court\u2019s decision was rendered, the estate (in this case) had only been in existence for about one year and therefore could not have been diminishing for close to five years. \u2026 True, the debtor had prior cases, and an estate was created in each case. But that, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to aggregate three separate estates into a single estate and then apply \u00a71208(c)(9) to the fictional combined estate. By utilizing the debtor\u2019s financial condition in its prior bankruptcy cases as the benchmark against which it measured the condition of the estate in this case, the court erred in applying the pertinent legal standard. We are persuaded that, in determining whether there was loss to or diminution of the estate, the court should have compared the size of the estate at some point after the petition date with the size of the estate at some later point after the petition date.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Even if we were to disregard the findings related to the prior cases, and to view the findings related to the post-petition period in isolation, those pertinent findings would not be sufficient to support a determination that the estate in this case was diminishing for purposes of \u00a71208(c)(9). Moreover, there is other evidence in the record tending to support the contrary view \u2014 i.e., that the estate was enhanced post-petition. This evidence (which the bankruptcy court did not emphasize) includes the sizeable amount of money parked in the court\u2019s registry, ostensibly unencumbered property of the estate.\n<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause \u00a71208(c)(9) is phrased in the conjunctive and the court\u2019s order expressly granted Condado\u2019s motion to dismiss based on that provision, we conclude here. Our determination of this narrow issue does not reach the court\u2019s assessment of the second prong of \u00a71208(c)(9) or any other basis for dismissal.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

In Re: Las Martas, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 03-003-25) (13 pages) (Fagone, J.) Appealed from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico (BAP No. PR 23-026) (March 5, 2025).<\/i>\n<\/p>\n

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.\n<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Listen to this article Where a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge dismissed a Chapter 12 case on the basis of \u201ccontinuing loss to or diminution of the estate\u201d and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4653,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[116],"tags":[128,5056,575,1565],"class_list":["post-4652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bankruptcy","tag-bankruptcy","tag-diminution","tag-dismissal","tag-loss"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4652\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}