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)

Citation:
BAP Nos. CC-14-1186-DTaKu (July 2, 2015) (unpublished)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
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.
Facts:
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.
Judge(s):
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