Murtaza v. Slaten (in re Murtaza)

Case Type:
Consumer
Case Status:
Affirmed
Citation:
BAP No. CC-17-1153-SKuTa (9th Circuit, Apr 02,2018) Not Published
Tag(s):
Ruling:
BAP for 9th Circuit affirmed judgment denying discharge entered by bankruptcy court (C.D. Cal.). Circumstantial evidence and inferences from debtor's conduct established debtor's actual fraudulent intent. Debtor made errors and omissions in schedules and SOFA knowingly and fraudulently by making them deliberately or consciously. Debtor was aware of creditors' collection efforts and was also aware of interest in, and claim for, inheritance at time of execution of schedules and SOFA. Debtor's explanations of "innocence" of errors were not credible.
Procedural context:
Bankruptcy court entered judgment denying debtor's discharge. Debtor appealed to BAP for 9th Circuit.
Facts:
Chapter 7 debtor filed bankruptcy on eve of debtor's exam by judgment creditors seeking to enforce $4 million+ in judgments. Debtor failed to schedule interest in $350,000 inheritance she was entitled to from father's estate based on father's death in 35 years prior. Debtor's siblings engaged in various inter-family agreements, setoff of familial debts, enforcement of gender-based cultural rights, familial support, and payments regarding distribution of inheritance, payment of debtor's mortgage, and purchase of Mercedes Benz. Debtor deposited paychecks into son's bank account directed deposits of other wages into debit card account to evade creditors. Debtor understated income by $54,000, and omitted interests in various businesses and real property. Debtor scheduled ex-husband whom she had not seen in Debtor claimed innocence, confusion, and advice of counsel in omissions.
Judge(s):
Spraker, Kurtz, Taylor

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

2720 in the system

2665 Summarized

6 Being Processed