Bankruptcy: An Examination of the Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a past blog I began a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice. The relevant bankruptcy code provision is §523(a)(6). I briefly established the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage and discussed how the court applied the standard to a case involving rented property.
     In the case of First Nat'l Bank of Md. v. Stanley, the United States Bankruptcy Court at Baltimore, Maryland, ruled that a debtor, whose creditor bank mistakenly extended his line of credit, and who used that windfall to purchase property that he speculated would shortly rise in value, converted the bank's money, despite his "good intentions" toward repayment, and discharge of the debt to the bank was denied as "willful and malicious" injury to the creditor under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6).
     The Court ruled that the act or conduct at issue in Stanley was conversion - an unauthorized exercise of dominion or control over property belonging to another that seriously interferes with the owner's rights. Although a person need not know that someone else has superior ownership rights in the property to be technically liable for the tort of conversion, the Court held that the test for malice under Vaughn requires such knowledge on the debtor's part before discharge will be denied - in other words, the debtor must have engaged in a "wrongful" conversion.
     In this case, the Court found that conversion was wrongful. The debtor knew that something was amiss when his credit limit on his line of credit was suddenly increased by a factor of ten. His explanation that he thought the bank had granted him a $73,000 "unsecured" line of credit was wholly irreconcilable with his knowledge that, just three months earlier, he had been approved for $2,000 less than the relatively modest secured line that they had requested. The Court pointed out that the debtor, though not a loan officer, was an accountant with one year of graduate school education; he was, by no means, unsophisticated.
     The proper focus in this case was not on debtor's "good intentions", but simply on his exercise of dominion and control over funds that he knew belonged to another. The debtor's deliberate conversion of the funds is the intentional, wrongful act that prevented the discharge of this debt to the bank.
     The Court found that the debtor inflicted willful and malicious injury on the bank; thus, he was not entitled to be discharged from the resultant debt.
     A future blog will apply the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage to another case involving withheld payments.

Bankruptcy: An Examination of the Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a previous blog I began a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice. The relevant bankruptcy code provision is §523(a)(6). I briefly established the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage. The standard is very fact specific so reviewing cases will shed light on how the standard is applied.
     In Appalachian Equipment & Supply Co. v. McDaniel, the United States Bankruptcy Court at Harrisonburg, Virginia, determined that the creditor/plaintiff, a rental company, had satisfied all of the elements necessary to prove its case under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6), and thus, its claim for damages from the improper use of the forklift was declared exempt from discharge.
     The Court in McDaniel ruled that the physical evidence was the most reliable evidence offered. That evidence showed that the forklift was delivered to the debtor in normal operable condition. It also showed that when the creditor picked up the forklift, it was damaged and displayed light blue paint on the bottom of the carriage. The debtor's evidence showed that one of the vehicles which was placed on the tractor trailer was a light-blue car. To the Court, it appeared more likely than not that the bottom portion of the carriage of the forklift was used in conjunction with attempting to crush the light-blue car such that paint flecks from the car attached themselves to the underside of the carriage. The Court indicated that it was satisfied that the expert testimony of the witness for the creditor established that more likely than not that the carriage of the forklift was used to apply hydraulic pressure in a downward direction with such force that the carriage boon and forks of the forklift were damaged. In conclusion, the Court found that the debtor used the carriage to accomplish his intent to crush cars, such use was inconsistent with the normal usage of the forklift, and such usage led to the damage of the forklift. The Court further found that the creditor proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor's actions in using the forklift were intentional.
     The Court in McDaniel found that the debtor knew that a forklift should not be used to crush cars. The physical evidence and the expert evidence offered by the creditor were more persuasive than the debtor's attempts to deflect blame to another person. It showed that the debtor applied the boon portion of the forklift to employ downward hydraulic pressure to the crush the cars. The Court ruled that it was satisfied that the debtor used the forklift in an improper manner to crush the cars in order to load them onto his flatbed trailer. The Court found that the debtor was an experienced forklift operator. He brought equipment to the site which could have been used to safely crush the cars. He used the forklift in a manner inconsistent with the generally accepted practice for the usage of this type of forklift. In light of these surrounding circumstances, the Court ruled that the debtor knew, or should have known, that his acts would cause damage to the forklift and resulting harm to the creditor. Thus, the Court ruled that the debtor's actions fit the definition of malice as set forth in the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, the standard for denial of discharge.
     In a future blog I will apply the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage to a case involving withheld payments.

Bankruptcy: An Examination of the Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a past blog I announced that we would begin a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice. The relevant bankruptcy code provision is §523(a)(6).
     Several cases illustrate well the dischargeability of debts involving property damage. In all cases, the trial and appellate courts are required to adhere to Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6), which states that a debt causing willful and malicious injury to another entity is not exempt from discharge.
     The standard established by the courts to prove willful and malicious injury is described by the court in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughn. In Vaughn, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated that the debtor must show, by contradicted and unimpeached evidence, to have committed a willful and malicious injury to the creditor’s property. There is no requirement of specific malice on the part of the debtor, however. The court held that “willful and malicious” injury means injury that is wrongful and without cause or excuse, but the debtor does not necessarily need to have ill will.
     However, this is a very general definition. Courts have applied this standard to many different situations and it is clear that this standard is very fact specific.  A future blog will apply and expand this standard in a case involving rented property.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a future blog, we will begin a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice.
     Several cases illustrate well the dischargeability of debts involving property damage. In all cases, the trial and appellate courts are required to adhere to Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6) which states that a debt causing willful and malicious injury to another entity is not exempt from discharge.
     If you have cases involving property damage that may fall within this code section, please let me know.