In re Duvall, Case No. 08-20466

Court found that the state court judgment, which was a default judgment rendered as a sanction for debtor’s failure to comply with discovery orders, was a judgment on the merits and, therefore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel was appropriate to prevent debtor from challenging the findings made in the state court judgment, and summary judgment was granted on this point. Court found that the findings made in the state court judgment did not determine the question of whether debtor’s conduct was “willful and malicious” under § 523(a)(6), and, therefore, declined to apply collateral estoppel to this issue and denied summary judgment on this point.

Date of decisions: February 18, 2009

Full opinion click here.

Bankruptcy Case Law

Cantu 2008 WL 5459834 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.)

Discharge 523(a)(6) - Jury's findings on intentional interference claims did not show actual intent to cause injury supporting nondischargeability.

Under Texas law, a jury's finding that a debtor acted with intentional interference was insufficient, alone, to show a subjective motive to injure, as would establish the actual intent to cause injury required for a judgment debt for tortious interference with contract and prospective contract to fall within the discharge exception for willful and malicious injury. Likewise, the jury's finding that the debtor's interferences with the judgment creditor's contract and prospective contract proximately caused the judgment creditor's injury was insufficient, alone, to show that the debtor acted with the objective substantial certainty of harm constituting actual intent to injure required to bring the judgment debt within the discharge exception.

Porter, Debtors, Holly Sells, Plntf-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Michael Porter, Dfndnt - Appellant/Cross-Appe Case Nos. 07-6008EA and 07-6013

Sexual harassment judgment was properly held to be not dischargeable on collateral estoppel grounds. Federal court trial established that debtor's actions were willful and malicious, satisfying the elements of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(6).

Date of decision: 8/15/07

Full opinion click here.

Bank of Iberia vs. Troy and Denise Jeffries - Adversary No: 07-2020

Description: Court denies complaint for nondischargability under 727(a)(2) but grants complaint under 523(a)(6). Plaintiff alleged that Debtor intentionally damaged its collateral. The Court found that Debtor s destruction or misuse of fully-encumbered property (and property with no equity) does not warrant denying him a general discharge under section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code because such an act does not harm the unsecured creditors whom the section seeks to protect. However, based on the evidence introduced by Plaintiff and the lack of any credible explanation from Debtor, the Court found that Plaintiff established that the damage was done with a wilful and malicious intent to injure Plaintiff and that it should therefore be nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(6).

Date of decision: 10/16/07

Full opinion click here.