Wilson v. Bryan , 182 F.3d 319 ( 1998 )

REVISED, December 31, 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30947
In the Matter of : HORACE E. WILSON; ALYNE DALE WILSON,
Debtors.
HORACE E. WILSON; ALYNE DALE WILSON,
Appellants,
versus
BRENT BRYAN; JENNIFER BRYAN BARBER,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
December 8, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case involves an important question of statutory interpretation of state
law that Louisiana courts have yet to resolve. Because of the impact that the
question of statutory exemptions under Louisiana law will have on both state court
and bankruptcy proceedings, we have determined that the preferred course is to
certify the central question in this case to the Supreme Court of Louisiana,
according to the privilege granted by Rule XII of the Rules of the Supreme Court
of Louisiana.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA:
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA:
1. STYLE OF THE CASE
The style of the case in which this certificate is made is In the matter of
Horace E. and Alyne Dale Wilson, Case No. 97-30947, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana. This case involves a determinative question of
state law; federal jurisdiction is based on an appeal from a final order of the district
court affirming a judgment of the bankruptcy court. After oral argument by the
parties, the Fifth Circuit has determined to certify this question to the Honorable
Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
2. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Following an accident in which their teenage daughter was killed, Brent
Bryan and Jennifer Bryan Barber sued Horace E. and Alyne Dale Wilson, alleging
that they negligently entrusted their sports car to their grandson, an unlicensed and
underage driver. Prior to trial, the Wilsons filed a Chapter 13 Petition in
bankruptcy, subsequently converted to a Chapter 12 proceeding, seeking relief from
this and other claims.
The Wilsons are dairy farmers. In their bankruptcy petition, they claimed an
2
exemption under La. R.S. 13:3881(A)(2) for 100 head of dairy cattle, valued
between $100,000 and $150,000. This section exempts from seizure “tools” and
“instruments” that are “necessary to the exercise of a trade, calling, or profession,
by which [the debtor] earns his livelihood.” The Bryans as creditors challenged
this exemption; in its ruling, the bankruptcy court found that dairy cows did not fall
within the ambit of “tools” or “instruments” within the meaning of the statute.
The Wilsons then appealed this ruling to the district court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. Finding no Louisiana or federal decision interpreting
Louisiana law, the district court reviewed the different interpretations of “tools”
among the circuits. The court ultimately adopted the reasoning of the Seventh
Circuit that “to regard cows and other livestock as tools or implements” would do
“particular violence to the English language.”1 The district court noted that under
Louisiana law, words must be given their generally prevailing meaning,2 and the
general definition of “tool” would exclude dairy cows.3 The district court further
reasoned that the legislature’s inclusion of an exemption for “poultry, foul, and one
cow kept by [the debtor] for the use of his family”4 is an indication that the
legislature did not intend animals or livestock to be included in the general
1
Matter of Patterson, 825 F.2d 1140, 1147 (7th Cir. 1987).
2
La.Civ.Code art. 11.
3
The district court defined tool as a “thing used to apply manual force to an object or
material especially a device designed for some particular mechanical function in a manual
activity, as a hammer, saw, a fork; an implement . . . .” In the matter of Horace and Alyne
Wilson, 1997 WL 563988 at 2 (E.D.La.), citing New Shorter Oxford Dictionary 3337 (4th
ed. 1993).
4
La.R.S. 13:3881(A)(4)(e).
3
exemption of “tools” or “instruments.” The Wilsons now appeal the district court’s
affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s ruling. We are aware of no fully dispositive
ruling by Louisiana’s highest court but we have found some aid and guidance in
several decisions, including: Young v. Geter, 185 La. 709, 170 So. 240 (La. 1936);
Martin v. Reynaud, 175 So. 914 (La.App. 1937); Finley v. Graves, 393 So. 2d 345
(La.App. 1980); Mounger v. Ferrell, 11 So. 2d 56 (La.App. 1942). We recognize
and respect the fact that this court is the final judicial authority on the meaning of
this Louisiana exemption.
3. QUESTION CERTIFIED
Whether dairy cows owned by a dairy farmer are exempt as tools or
instruments of the debtor’s trade under Louisiana Revised Statute 13:3881(A)(2).
4. CONCLUSION
We disclaim any intention or desire that the Supreme Court of Louisiana
confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the question certified. The answer
provided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana will determine the issue on appeal in
this case. The record in this case, together with copies of the parties’ briefs, is
transmitted herewith.
4