Parks v. FIA Card Services, N.A. (In re Marshall)
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
550 F.3d 1251 (2008)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Bryan and Julie Marshall (debtors) had two credit card accounts with MBNA Corporation, successor in interest to FIA Card Services, N.A. (MBNA), and two credit card accounts with Capital One. In 2005, the Marshalls filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. During the 90 days before their bankruptcy filing, the Marshalls directed Capital One to transfer their Capital One account balances totaling $38,000 to their MBNA accounts. After the bankruptcy filing, bankruptcy trustee Linda Parks sought to recover the $38,000 as preferential transfers. The bankruptcy court concluded that the payments to MBNA were not preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) because they were not transfers “of an interest of the debtor in property.” The bankruptcy court found instead that the Marshalls had merely substituted one creditor for another. The district court affirmed after analyzing the case under the earmarking doctrine, which provides that in some circumstances, a debtor’s use of borrowed funds for the purpose of paying a specific debt is exempt from the bankruptcy trustee’s power to avoid transfers. The court found that (1) the Marshalls lacked sufficient control over the payments to MBNA for the payments to constitute property interests of the Marshalls, and (2) the bankruptcy estate had not been diminished by the payments to MBNA. Parks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Brien, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.