John Tiffany

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
JOHN TIFFANY,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 06-00176
(Chapter 13)
DECISION RE TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The debtor plainly has not complied with 11 U.S.C. § 109(h),
thus requiring that this case be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Even though the case is jurisdictionally barred,
that would not preclude the court from dismissing the case with
prejudice in the case of bad faith. Intentionally filing in an
improper district can give rise to a dismissal with prejudice.
See In re Pickeral, 267 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2001).
The debtor's opposition urges that venue was proper because
his principal place of business was in the District of Columbia
and because his principal assets (such as a bank account) are in
the District of Columbia. Being an employee in the District of
Columbia does not amount to conducting a business in the District
of Columbia, see Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193, 204-5 (D.C. Cir.
The decision below is hereby signed. Dated: June
28, 2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 06-00176 Doc 25 Filed 06/28/06 Entered 06/28/06 14:12:10 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

1 If the court's assumption is wrong, the trustee may move
for reconsideration.
2
1982). Moreover, it is not at all clear that having a bank
account with a bank in the District of Columbia means that the
asset is located in the District of Columbia (instead of being
viewed as located wherever the debtor resides because it is
intangible property). See In re Healy, 1989 WL 149679 (Bankr. D.
Md. 1989), citing Miller Bros. Co. v. State of Maryland, 347 U.S.
340, 345, 353 n.9 (1954) (noting decisions dealing with
intangible property that “apply the maxim mobilia sequntur
personam” meaning that the property is viewed as residing with
the owner). But see In re Farmer, 288 B.R. 31 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.
2002) (savings account in New York bank, debtor's only asset in
United States, made venue proper).
The trustee in her reply memorandum points only to § 109(h)
as a basis for dismissal and asks that the case be dismissed
without the necessity of a hearing. The court thus assumes that
the trustee intended to press dismissal with prejudice based on
improper venue (an issue that would require a hearing) only if
the court found that the debtor's case passed muster under §
109(h).1 Because the case does not pass muster under § 109(h),
the court will dismiss the case without prejudice.
[Signed and dated above.]
Case 06-00176 Doc 25 Filed 06/28/06 Entered 06/28/06 14:12:10 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\JUDGTEMP\Tiffany (John) Decision re Motion to Dismiss.wpd
Copies to: Debtor; trustee; U.S. Trustee.
Case 06-00176 Doc 25 Filed 06/28/06 Entered 06/28/06 14:12:10 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3