Crandall 2008 WL 5459850 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.)

Circumstantial evidence supported default judgment on credit card issuer's nondischargeability claim.

A combination of facts found in a Chapter 7 debtor's schedules and statement of financial affairs provided adequate circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion, for the purposes of a default judgment on the credit card issuer's claim that the credit card debt fell within the fraud discharge exception, that, at the time he incurred the credit card charge, the debtor intended not to pay the charge but to file a bankruptcy petition instead. These facts included the debtor's divorce, the timing of the debtor's prepetition $8,007 charge to credit card, the identity of the party to whom the charge was made, the debtor's payments in the 90 days preceding his bankruptcy, the proximity of the payment and the filing of bankruptcy, and the debtor's hopeless financial circumstances. Although the evidence might not be sufficient in other circumstances, the court emphasized, it was enough for a default judgment.

In re Swanson, (Bkrtcy.N.D.Iowa)

December 17, 2008: Discharge - Credit counseling services that debtor purchased with credit card were not "luxury" services.

While items that a Chapter 7 debtor purchased with a credit card over a thirteen-day period immediately proceeding her consultation with and retention of a bankruptcy attorney, consisting of clothing, shoes, books, beads and household items, might generally be considered necessary items, the fact that debtor spent more than $3,200 on such items over a period of just thirteen days, at time when she was experiencing financial difficulties, was sufficient to make the purchases excessive, and to trigger the statutory presumption of nondischargeability for a debtor's eve-of-bankruptcy purchases of "luxury goods." However, credit counseling services that the debtor purchased with her credit card were not in the nature of "luxury" services.

Dains v. Dains (In re Dains), Case No. 07-2038

Description: Plaintiff brought claims for nondischargeability for false representation and willful and malicious injury to property under 532(a)(2) & (a)(6). Court denied these claims based on Plaintiff ′ s failure to meet her burden of proof on the elements of fraud by a preponderance of evidence and her failure to establish that Debtor willfully and maliciously injured the property. Plaintiff also sought denial of discharge for Debtor ′ s alleged concealment of property with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and for his making a false oath or account under 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4)(A). Court also denied these claims based on Plaintiff ′ s failure to prove each of the elements of the applicable claim by a preponderance of evidence. Court also denied Debtor ′ s counterclaim for attorney ′ s fees under 523(d) due to fact debt at issue was not a consumer debt.

Date of the opinion: 3/24/08

For full opinion click here.