Grenier v. Roback (In re Grenier)

Summarized by Thomas Phinney , Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby Pascuzzi & Rios LLP
10 years 9 months ago

Citation:

9th Cir. BAP No. NC-14-1396-KiTaD (June 10, 2015) (unpublished)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

Creditor, who obtained state court judgment ("Judgment") against the Debtor for financial elder abuse, was not entitled to summary judgment on her Section 523(a)(6) claim for willful and malicious injury. Creditor did not establish that Debtor's subjective intent to harm the Debtor was actually litigated or necessarily decided by the state court. Thus, the bankruptcy court erred in applying issue preclusion to the Judgment, and the matter was remanded for trial.

Procedural context:

Bankruptcy court granted Motion for Summary Judgment on Creditor's Section 523(a)(6) claim, based upon the preclusive effect of the Judgment. The BAP reversed, and remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court for trial.

Facts:

Creditor filed nondischargeability action against the Debtor, alleging that the Judgment was excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) and (a)(6). Creditor moved for summary judgment on her § 523(a)(2)(6) claim. Creditor contended that the findings by the state court — that Debtor had in bad faith taken Creditor's property in violation of CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 15610.30 and CAL. PROB. CODE § 859 — established the elements for a "willful and malicious injury" under § 523(a)(6).

Judge(s):

KIRSCHER, TAYLOR and DUNN

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!