Davis v. Kice Indus., Inc. (In re WB Servs., LLC)
587 B.R. 548 | United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas | 2018
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A subcontractor (Kice) received a joint payee check from the project owner made out to both the general contractor (WB Services) and the subcontractor within 90 days before the GC filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee sued to recover the payment as a preferential transfer. The court ruled that joint payee checks do constitute a transfer of the contractor's property interest, rejecting the subcontractor's argument that the earmarking doctrine protected the payment. The case was remanded for trial on whether the subcontractor's new value defense (work performed) would shield it from repayment.
Key Takeaways
- •Joint payee checks from owners to both GC and subcontractor can be clawed back by a bankruptcy trustee as preferential transfers—don't assume receiving your name on the check protects you.
- •The earmarking doctrine (which protects payments intended for a specific creditor) does not apply in GC-subcontractor relationships; it only works with guarantors or lenders.
- •Your best defense if sued for preference recovery is proving you provided new value (labor, materials, services) after receiving the payment—document all work performed after payment dates.
The new value defense may defeat the Trustee's claim, but uncontroverted facts are insufficient to rule.
Frequently Asked Question
If I get paid on a joint check with the general contractor and they file bankruptcy, can the trustee make me give the money back?
Yes, possibly. A joint payee check is treated as a transfer of the contractor's property, so it can be recovered as a preferential transfer if received within 90 days before bankruptcy. Your best defense is proving you performed work or supplied materials after receiving the payment. Document all post-payment work carefully to establish the new value defense.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.