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) (9^th 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) (9^th 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) (9^th 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