- 89 -
are not barred by statutes of limitations so long as the main
action is timely, and said that a bankruptcy defendant can meet a
plaintiff-debtor's claim with a counterclaim arising out of the
same transaction, "at least to the extent that the defendant
merely seeks recoupment." Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 113
S. Ct. at 1218 & n.2. The Supreme Court went on to say that this
did not result in preferential treatment of the creditor
asserting recoupment, inasmuch as recoupment merely permits a
determination of the just and proper liability on the main issue.
Id. at 1218-1219 n.2. To take account of anything other than the
same transaction in determining the amount of recoupment would be
inconsistent with this argument, and indeed the Supreme Court
made absolutely no mention of a further, unrelated amount owing
to the plaintiff-debtor.37
36(...continued)
authority of Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (1935). In re
Monongahela Rye Liquors, Inc., 141 F.2d 864, 869 (3d Cir. 1944).
As in the tax area, recoupment is used in bankruptcy cases to
prevent unjust enrichment. A debtor should not benefit from
post-petition sales to a creditor under a contract without the
burden of repaying the creditor's pre-petition overpayments under
the same contract. In re Peterson Distrib., Inc., 82 F.3d 956,
961 (10th Cir. 1996); In re B & L Oil Co., 782 F.2d 155, 159
(10th Cir. 1986) (cited with approval for extent to which
recoupment is available in bankruptcy in Reiter v. Cooper, 507
U.S. 258, 265 n.2 (1993)). The prevention of unjust enrichment
thought of in these terms is the real reason for the single-
transaction requirement, both in bankruptcy, where it is also
enforced, and in the tax area.
37This additional amount is disclosed in the opinion of the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011