In re Montgomery

983 F.2d 1389 (1993)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Montgomery

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
983 F.2d 1389 (1993)


N. Eddie Montgomery was the sole owner of Southland Escrow Services, Inc. (collectively, Montgomery) (debtor), a firm that engaged in real estate closings. In 1987, Montgomery opened several bank accounts with Third National Bank (Third National) (creditor) as part of a cash-management system for Montgomery’s business. The cash-management system entailed a main funding account, which held the receipts from real estate closings, and a zero-balance account, from which checks were drawn. The system allowed Montgomery to have immediate access to the funds in the main funding account and was intended to transfer funds into the zero-balance account each day to cover whatever checks were presented for payment that day. The system did not operate in a timely manner, which resulted in checks being initially recorded as overdrafts. In turn, a bank employee would debit the main funding account the following day to balance out the accounts. However, the main funding account often did not contain enough funds to cover the checks that were being drawn. By March 1988, Third National suspected that Montgomery was running a check-kiting scheme across several different banks. By this time, the overdraft balance at Third National had increased significantly to over $2 million. In early April 1988, Third National called Montgomery to a meeting to discuss the mechanics of reducing the overdraft balance. Montgomery agreed to do so. Deposits continued being made into the main funding account, but Montgomery stopped writing checks from the zero-balance account. As a result, Montgomery’s negative balance at Third National was reduced to zero. Despite resolving the overdraft issue with Third National, Montgomery’s check-kiting activities continued at other banks. On June 3, 1988, involuntary-bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against Montgomery. Subsequently, the trustee in bankruptcy demanded that Third National return approximately $2 million in preferential transfers. Third National refused. In an adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court ruled that the transfers were preferential under the Bankruptcy Code and thus voidable. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, and Third National appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership