01-3007 Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. John T. Connors and Mary L. Connors

Listen to this article

“The bankruptcy court found that the documents that the Connors produced did not meet the sec.727(a)(3) standard. First, this Circuit’s case law makes clear that neither the court nor a creditor is required to reconstruct a debtor’s financial situation by sifting through a morass of checks and bank statements. Scott, 172 F.3d at 970; In re Juzwiak, 89 F.3d 424, 428-29 (7th Cir. 1996). The Bankruptcy Code simply does not require [creditors] to match dates and amounts of deposits and withdrawals with dates and amounts of loans. It is the debtor’s duty to maintain and provide the court with organized records of its financial dealings. Id. Moreover, the Connors conducted multiple large-scale transactions in the course of running their businesses. “Where debtors are sophisticated in business, and carry on a business involving significant assets, creditors have an expectation of greater and better record keeping.” Scott, 172 F.3d at 970. There is no question that the Connors owned and invested in several major enterprises. They borrowed, lent, transferred, and spent extremely large sums of money to keep these businesses afloat. Providing the court with a stack of cancelled checks and deposit account statements simply does not meet their burden under sec.727; it does not give [creditors] sufficient information to trace their financial history or to reconstruct their transactions.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Flaum, J.