In re Dougherty – justifiable
reliance did not need to be established; Section 523(a)(2)(A)
(1998?)
CARRILLO v. SU, No. 01-55656 (9th
Cir. May 20, 2002) In determining non-dischargeability of a
debt under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6), the proper inquiry is
whether the injury underlying the judgment involved either a
subjective intent to harm, or a subjective belief that harm
was substantially certain.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0155656p.pdf
CRIMINAL RESTITUTION ORDERED PAID TO INJURED PARTY WAS
DISCHARGEABLE In
re Wilson, __ B.R. __ (E.D.Va. 2003)
(E.D.Va
2003) Debtor, who disposed of a motor vehicle that was subject
to a lien, was charged with a felony under Virginia law. Prior
to debtor's trial on this charge, he entered into a plea
agreement under which he pled guilty to the misdemeanor crime
of fraud as an accessory after the fact. The Richmond Circuit
Court found debtor guilty and additionally entered an order on
April 30, 2002, requiring debtor to pay criminal restitution
to plaintiff.
Plaintiff, a secured creditor, objected to discharge. The
Court looked at split in authority on this issue, and opted
for the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code, which makes
restitution “payable to or for the benefit of a governmental
unit” is nondischargeable.
BANKS v. GILL
DISTRIBUTION CTRS., INC. (08/15/01 - No. 00-55339) (9th
Cir. Ct App) A valid state law claim need not be reduced to a
pre-petition judgment to be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0055339p.pdf
PEKLAR v.
IKERD (08/09/01 - No. 00-55464) (9th Cir. Ct App)
A California state civil court judgment for conversion may be
discharged in bankruptcy because it does not involve "willful
and malicious injury" under 11 USC 523(a)(6).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0055464p.pdf
MARKUS v.
GSCHWEND (12/17/02 - No. 01-17279) (9th Cir Ct App)
An untimely complaint objecting to discharge of a judgment
creditor did not relate-back to a timely motion objecting to
debtor's discharge, and that motion did not comply with the
pleading requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 7008(a) or FRCP
8(a). Litigation expenses cannot be shifted when sanctions are
imposed under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, on the court's initiative.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0117279p.pdf
STAFFER v.
PREDOVICH, No. 01-56093 (9th Cir. September 27, 2002) A
separate motion to reopen is not necessary when commencing an
action for nondischargeability of a debt under Bankruptcy Rule
4007(b). Moving party may simply file a nondischargeability
complaint.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0156093p.pdf
BEATY v.
SELINGER, No. 01-56576 (9th Cir. September 26, 2002) The
doctrine of laches may apply as an affirmative defense to
nondischargeability complaints brought under 11 U.S.C. section
523(a)(3)(B), where defendant shows extraordinary
circumstances and sets forth a compelling reason why the
action should be barred.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0156576p.pdf
PEKLAR v. IKERD, No 00-55464 (9th
Cir. August 09, 2001) A California state civil court judgment
for conversion may be discharged in bankruptcy because it does
not involve "willful and malicious injury" under 11 USC
523(a)(6).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0055464p.pdf
BANKS v. GILL DISTRIBUTION CTRS.,
INC., No 00-55339 (9th Cir. August 15, 2001) A valid state law
claim need not be reduced to a pre-petition judgment to be
non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
BALDWIN v. KILPATRICK (05/09/01 -
No. 00-15332) Under 11 USC 523(a)(6), a prior state court
proceeding that granted default judgment in a battery lawsuit
that was previously arbitrated will have preclusive effect on
whether judgment is nondischargeable as a "willful and
malicious injury". Default judgment entered in lower court
acts as collateral estoppel and granted Movant’s summary
judgment in Movant’s nondischargability action (plaintiff in
superior court case).
DIAMOND v. KOLCUM, No. 00-16280
(9th Cir. April 04, 2002) Defendants are entitled to a
declaration of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. section
523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) because the state court judgment to
which they asked the bankruptcy court to give preclusive
effect necessarily implicated issues identical to those
implicated in the nondischargeability proceeding, and those
issues were therefore actually litigated in the state court
proceeding.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016280p.pdf
BACK TO BANKRUPTCY CASE LAW
Index
OPINION
SUMMARIES ARCHIVE FindLaw archives case law summaries of
opinion issued since September 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court,
all thirteen Federal Circuit Courts, the California Supreme
Court, the California Appellate Courts, and the New York Court
of Appeals.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html
