Now Updating
Margaret Kinney v. HSBC Bank USA

Summarizing by Bradley Pearce

In re Anthony Ray Lincoln

Summarizing by Mawerdi Hamid

Arden v. Silas (In re Arden)

BAP Nos. CC-14-1186-DTaKu (July 2, 2015) (unpublished)
Creditor was not entitled to summary judgment on her § 523(a)(6) claim, based upon a prepetition malicious prosecution judgment against the Debtor. Although it was a "very close call," the results in the malicious prosecution action did not establish the element of “willfulness” for § 523(a)(6) purposes, and thus the state court judgment lacked issue preclusive effect. The BAP VACATED and REMANDED the bankruptcy court’s order granting Creditor's motion for summary judgment.
Procedural context:
The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Creditor. On appeal, the BAP vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Creditor, an attorney, represented a client and lost at trial. Debtor, also an attorney, then represented the client in a legal malpractice action against Creditor and did not prevail. Creditor then sued Debtor for malicious prosecution under California law, and successfully obtained a jury verdict. When Debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the Creditor sued the Debtor for willful and malicious injury, and sought summary judgment based upon the preclusive effect of the state court judgment.
DUNN, TAYLOR and KURTZ, Bankruptcy Judges.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3289 in the system

3166 Summarized

5 Being Processed