Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Kalb v. Feuerstein

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureBankruptcyFarmer-debtor redemptionFrazier-Lemke ActBankruptcy ActFrazier-Lemke Actredemptioncash payment

Facts

Kalb, a farmer debtor, sought relief under the Frazier-Lemke Act after foreclosure proceedings had been brought on his farm. Following his adjudication as a bankrupt, the Commissioner restored him to possession, fixed rent, stayed proceedings for three years, and appraised the farm at $12,000. Before the stay expired, Kalb deposited $5,300 with the Commissioner and filed an assignment of supposed loan proceeds from the National Farm Loan Association for $7,000, but the accompanying letter stated funds would be available only after the Commissioner furnished a continued abstract of title. When the stay expired, the secured creditors petitioned for appointment of a trustee and sale, and the Commissioner found no redemption had been made.

Issue

Did Kalb effect a valid redemption of the mortgaged farm within the three-year period allowed by § 203(s)(3) of the Bankruptcy Act by depositing $5,300 and submitting a conditional assignment of expected loan proceeds for the balance? If not, was the appointment of a trustee and direction for sale proper?

Rule

Section 203(s)(3) requires the debtor, at the end of the three-year period or earlier, to pay into court the appraised value of the property, less qualifying principal payments, in order to redeem. The amount of redemption is the governing appraisal or court-fixed value, and the terms of redemption are cash; a conditional or incomplete loan arrangement that does not make funds available in cash does not satisfy the statute.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Marta Ruiz, a farmer debtor in Iowa, remained in possession of her land during a three-year stay. The property had been appraised at $180,000, and on the final day of the stay she paid $120,000 into court and delivered a signed note from Prairie Valley Lending stating it expected to fund the remaining $60,000 after updated title work and lien verification were completed.

Did Marta effect a valid redemption of the property within the statutory period?

Explanation. The majority opinion treated § 203(s)(3) as requiring the debtor to pay into court the appraised value, or the value fixed after hearing, on cash terms within the statutory period. A partial cash deposit combined with a conditional loan arrangement does not satisfy redemption because the remaining funds are not actually available in cash to the court.