Summary
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia considers Curtis F. Perry’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims brought by Chapter 7 Trustee Aaron Amore under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a), along with claims for civil conspiracy, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The court dismisses the § 550(a) and unjust enrichment claims against Perry because he was alleged to be the transferor rather than a transferee and the trustee lacked standing to pursue unjust enrichment. The court holds the fraud and civil conspiracy claims in abeyance pending resolution of a related adversary proceeding concerning revocation of Perry’s discharge.
Court
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Jurisdiction
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Decision date
November 21, 2025
Docket number
3:25-ap-00005
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Perry was a transferee or an entity for whose benefit a transfer was made from whom the trustee could recover under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a).
- Whether the trustee had standing under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b) and 550(a) to assert an unjust-enrichment claim against Perry.
- Whether Perry's fraud and civil-conspiracy claims were ripe for adjudication while a related proceeding concerning revocation of his bankruptcy discharge remained pending.
Holdings
- The amended complaint did not plausibly state a claim for recovery under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a) because the allegations characterized Perry as the transferor, not the initial or subsequent transferee, of the property at issue. The claim was dismissed.
- The trustee lacked standing under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b) and 550(a) to assert unjust enrichment against Perry because the alleged transactions involved property acquired by Perry using his own credit, not a transfer to the debtor recoverable under those provisions. The unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed.
- The court held its ruling on the fraud and civil-conspiracy claims in abeyance because their viability depended on the outcome of the related adversary proceeding seeking revocation of Perry's discharge.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…