Van Zandt v. Mbunda (In re Mbunda)

Summarized by Holly Roark , Roark Law Offices
13 years 2 months ago

Citation:

NC-11-1653-MkHPa

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The court ruled against executor of creditor Malis' estate on the 523(a)(2) claim because the facts showed that Debtor Mbunda did intend to pay back the debt, and to admit evidence that Malis wanted to introduce would have been to include two levels of hearsay: what Mbunda told Malis and what Malis told the executor. The court ruled against Malis on the 523(a)(4) claim because the claim was based on a partnership theory and the fiduciary duties owed between partners, where the executor admitted that he has no facts to support such a theory, e.g. no evidence of a partnership. The court ruled against Malis on the 523(a)(6) claim (dismissed without leave to amend) because Malis could not prove subjective motive to inflict injury. Malis also failed on her due process claim because there was no due process violation but rather a simple failure to offer admissible evidence to establish her claims.

Procedural context:

Appeal to BAP from United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of San Francisco. BAP affirms lower court.

Facts:

Executor of estate of Malis sued Debtor Mbunda under 523(a)(2), (4), and (6), alleging that Mbunda made multiple misrepresentations to Malis to induce her to loan Mbunda $200,000 for her jewelry business, including that Mbunda would use the funds to purchase raw materials, that Malis would have a security interest in raw materials (gold, ivory, gemstones) and other collateral, that Mbunda would execute security documents, and that Mbunda would make payments on Malis' mortgage since that's how the loan was financed. Lower court ruled in favor of Debtor and executor appeals.

Judge(s):

Dennis Montali

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!