- 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 CC-14-1186-DTaKu (July 2, 2015) (unpublished)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.
Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Earl Blasingame
Summarizing by Amir Shachmurove
Candise Hooker v. Wanigas Credit Union
Summarizing by Sarah Tomlinson
3202 in the system
2 Being Processed