American States Insurance Co. v. United States
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
324 B.R. 600 (2005)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 2000 SSEM Corporation entered into a subcontract with Manhattan Construction Company (Manhattan) in relation to a construction project. Under the subcontract, Manhattan could hold 5 percent of the contract fee in retainage until the project was complete. American States Insurance Company (American) (plaintiff) agreed to act as surety for the subcontract. SSEM performed some work under the subcontract and then defaulted. At the time of the default, Manhattan held approximately $89,000 in retainage. As surety, American paid over $430,000 to complete SSEM’s work. In 2003 SSEM filed for bankruptcy. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings for $500,000 in unpaid payroll taxes. The IRS filed a motion to collect its claim. The IRS argued that the retained funds were part of SSEM’s bankruptcy estate and that its claim had priority over other claims. American filed its own motion, arguing that it had equitable-subrogation rights to the funds held in retainage and that the retainage was not part of SSEM’s bankruptcy estate, because SSEM never earned the retained funds. To support its motion, American cited Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Co., in which the United States Supreme Court held that a surety had equitable-subrogation rights to funds held in retainage if those funds were necessary to repay the surety. The bankruptcy court denied both the IRS’s and American’s motions. Because Pearlman was decided before the United States Bankruptcy Code was codified, the bankruptcy court disregarded its holding. American appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Godbey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.