Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

6

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. v. UNION PLANTERS BANK, N. A.

Opinion of the Court

tioner—an administrative claimant—is a proper party to seek recovery under § 506(c).2

In answering this question, we begin with the understanding that Congress "says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there," Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 254 (1992). As we have previously noted in construing another provision of § 506, when "the statute's language is plain, 'the sole function of the courts' "—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—" 'is to enforce it according to its terms.' " United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241 (1989) (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917)). Here, the statute appears quite plain in specifying who may use § 506(c)—"[t]he trustee." It is true, however, as petitioner notes, that all this actually "says" is that the trustee may seek recovery under the section, not that others may not. The question thus becomes whether it is a proper inference that the trustee is the only party empowered to invoke the provision.3 We have little difficulty answering yes.

Several contextual features here support the conclusion that exclusivity is intended. First, a situation in which a statute authorizes specific action and designates a particular party empowered to take it is surely among the least appropriate in which to presume nonexclusivity. "Where a

2 In addition to seeking recovery under § 506(c), petitioner argued to the Eighth Circuit en banc that it was entitled to recover under the terms of the postpetition financing order itself. Petitioner sought to enforce that order under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7071, which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71 ("When an order is made in favor of a person who is not a party to the action, that person may enforce obedience to the order by the same process as if a party . . ."). The Eighth Circuit declined to address this issue, since it had not been raised until the rehearing en banc, In re Hen House Interstate, Inc., 177 F. 3d 719, 724 (1999). We similarly do not reach the issue here.

3 Debtors-in-possession may also use the section, as they are expressly given the rights and powers of a trustee by 11 U. S. C. § 1107.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007