Van Damme v. Hammer 1994 Trust (In re Van Damme)

Summarized by Samuel Schwartz , Schwartz Law, PLLC
12 years 4 months ago

Citation:

2013 WL 5550368 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2013)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the holding of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of California, finding that the Bankruptcy Court: a) properly applied issue preclusion; b) did not abuse its discretion; and c) plaintiffs’ judgment against debtor is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Procedural context:

Appeal by Chapter 7 debtor from the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of California’s judgment in favor of creditor-appellee, which gave preclusive effect to a Nevada state court’s FFCL, concluding that judgment debt was nondischargeable under§ 523(a)(6). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion regarding the availability of issue preclusion of law de novo, whether applying the issue preclusion was an abuse of discretion, and reviewed mixed issues of law and fact regarding whether a claim is dischargeable de novo.

Facts:

Appellant and Appellees owned and lived on adjacent properties in Nevada. A stone wall and retaining wall erected between the properties created a gap, which was owned by Appellees. Appellant subsequently began construction of a pool grotto, using Appellee’s wall as an anchor for attaching various pool-related devices and features. Ultimately, the Appellees commenced a civil proceeding in Nevada state court alleging trespass, quiet title, slander of title, and battery. The Nevada state court issued two orders granting partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The first order ruled that Appellants willfully, intentionally and deliberately encroached on and utilized Appellee’s property and such conduct was malicious, resulting in substantially certain economic harm to the Appellees property. The second order stated that the Appellants actions were done willfully, intentionally and deliberately and resulted in harm to Appellees. Prior to the final trial date, the Appellant’s wife commenced a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Subsequently, the Nevada state court issued a Memorandum of Decision in favor of Appellees on all claims. Prior to entry of the Memorandum, the Appellant also commenced a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Appellees then filed an adversary case in the first Chapter 7 case for nondischargeability, which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice. The Appellants then commenced an adversary proceeding against Appellant seeking to have the state court judgment debt against him declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). The court ultimately gave preclusive effect to the state court’s FFCL and concluded the judgment debt was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Judge(s):

Honorable Randall L. Dunn, Honorable Meredith A. Jury, Honorable Jim D. Pappas

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!