CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

E. Armata, Inc. v. Parra

Plaintiffs E. Armata, Inc. and A & J Produce Corp. moved for summary judgment to declare debts owed by Defendant Jhony Parra nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(4), alleging defalcation while acting as a fiduciary under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). The Court determined that a PACA trust constitutes a technical trust, establishing Parra's fiduciary capacity for purposes of § 523(a)(4). However, the motion for summary judgment on the issue of defalcation was denied due to a material issue of fact regarding whether Parra had actual knowledge of his fiduciary duties, a requirement for proving defalcation under the Second Circuit's 'conscious misbehavior or extreme recklessness' standard. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendant's opposition as untimely was denied.

BankruptcyNondischargeabilityFiduciary DutyPACA TrustPerishable Agricultural Commodities ActDefalcationSummary JudgmentTechnical TrustConscious MisbehaviorExtreme Recklessness
References
40
Case No. 3:14-bk-30921-SHB
Regular Panel Decision

Lansden v. Jones (In re Jones)

This adversary proceeding concerns a Complaint to Determine Nondischargeability of Debt filed by Carl Lansden, Robert Cash, and Carl Hugh Lansden against Charles M. Jones, III, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiffs sought a judgment based on an Inventory in Satisfaction of Debt Agreement (ISDA) from 2010, which they alleged was procured by Defendant through false pretenses and misrepresentations regarding the unencumbered status and importability of firearm inventory (ARMACO and FTZ Inventories). The Court found that Defendant benefited from the ISDA and made false representations with fraudulent intent concerning the ARMACO Inventory, rendering that portion of the debt nondischargeable. However, the Court determined that Plaintiffs' reliance on Defendant's representations regarding the FTZ Inventory was not justifiable due to constructive notice of existing liens, thus that portion of the debt was discharged. Ultimately, Plaintiffs were awarded a nondischargeable judgment totaling $800,626.97, plus attorneys' fees, but their claim for punitive damages was denied.

Bankruptcy LawDebt NondischargeabilityFraudulent MisrepresentationFalse PretensesInventory Transfer AgreementFirearms ImportationSecured CreditorBreach of ContractAgency RelationshipCompensatory Damages
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

De Curtis v. Ferrandina (In re Ferrandina)

Donna De Curtis, the plaintiff, sought summary judgment to declare a debt owed by debtor Thomas E. Ferrandina nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). This debt originated from a default judgment in the Southern District of New York, where De Curtis had sued Ferrandina for sexual harassment and workplace retaliation. Ferrandina's attempts to vacate this judgment were unsuccessful, with rulings against him affirmed by the Second Circuit. Applying New York's issue preclusion rules, the Bankruptcy Court found that Ferrandina had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, and that his actions constituted "willful and malicious injury." Consequently, the Court granted De Curtis' motion, finding the debt nondischargeable.

BankruptcyNondischargeable DebtSexual HarassmentWorkplace RetaliationIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelDefault JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1994

Wash v. Moebius (In Re Wood)

This memorandum opinion addresses a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment concerning the dischargeability of Rule 11 sanctions in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The sanctions, amounting to $15,403.62, were previously imposed against Erik C. Moebius for filing frivolous federal civil rights claims. The court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, finding that Moebius' actions were both willful and malicious, thus rendering the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). However, the court determined that the debt was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), as the sanctions were deemed compensatory and not payable to a governmental unit. Consequently, the court mandated judgment for the plaintiff, declaring the debt nondischargeable based on the findings under § 523(a)(6).

Rule 11 sanctionscollateral estoppelnondischargeabilitywillful and malicious injurybankruptcy lawadversary proceedingfrivolous litigationattorney misconduct523(a)(6)523(a)(7)
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1987

Norton v. Dean (In Re Dean)

This is an amended memorandum opinion in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding where Mr. and Mrs. Norton sought to declare a debt owed by Dean nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The debt originated from a state court judgment in Dallas County, Texas, where Dean, a licensed social worker, was found liable for engaging in sexual relations with his patient, Mrs. Norton, causing severe emotional, psychological, and physical damages to both Mr. and Mrs. Norton. The state court jury awarded compensatory and exemplary damages based on willful or wanton negligence. The Bankruptcy Court, after reviewing the state court record and additional testimony, concluded that Dean's actions were 'willful and malicious' as defined by bankruptcy law, thereby rendering the entire state court judgment, including both compensatory and exemplary damages, nondischargeable.

Bankruptcy LawDischargeability of DebtWillful and Malicious InjuryProfessional MisconductSocial Worker EthicsSexual MisconductCollateral EstoppelState Court JudgmentExemplary DamagesCompensatory Damages
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Soika

This case concerns Household Finance Corporation's petition to review a Referee in Bankruptcy's order regarding the nondischargeability of a prebankruptcy debt. The bankrupt provided false financial statements to Household Finance Corp. and Postal Finance Co., omitting significant existing indebtedness. The Referee found these statements to be materially false, made with intent to deceive, and relied upon by the creditors, resulting in the bankrupt receiving additional funds. The Referee determined the nondischargeable liability for Household Finance Corp. to be $75.00, which was challenged by Household Finance, seeking $1,400.00. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, concluding that the 1960 amendment to the Bankruptcy Act § 17(a)(2) does not impose a special penalty beyond the New York 'actual pecuniary loss' rule for fraud, thus construing exceptions to discharge strictly in favor of the bankrupt.

BankruptcyNondischargeable DebtFalse Financial StatementFraudDamagesBankruptcy ActCreditor RightsDebtor ProtectionPecuniary LossAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2017

Tomlinson v. Clem (In re Clem)

Plaintiffs-Creditors LaDainian and LaTorsha Tomlinson initiated an adversary proceeding against Defendant-Debtor Steven Andrew Clem, seeking to declare a debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. The debt stemmed from a custom home building contract with Bella Vita Custom Homes, LLC, where Clem, as CEO, engaged in fraudulent nondisclosures and misrepresentations. Specifically, the court found fraud concerning unapproved changes to foundation piers, the failure to account for the Tomlinsons' initial deposit, and false statements about builder's risk insurance. The court concluded that a debt of $664,590.93 was nondischargeable due to Clem's personal liability for these fraudulent acts and imposed additional sanctions of $19,384.26 for discovery violations. This decision emphasizes the importance of transparency and disclosure in contractual agreements, especially in complex construction projects.

Bankruptcy LawNondischargeable DebtFraudulent MisrepresentationFraud by NondisclosureConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Veil PiercingCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataCustom Home Building
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

43 East 74th St. Associates v. Marceca (In Re Marceca)

The Chapter 7 debtor, Robert K. Marceca, moved to dismiss an adversary proceeding filed by plaintiffs Benjamin S. Richman, Arthur Shulman, and Irving Barr. The plaintiffs sought to declare claims nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The first claim alleged Marceca embezzled partnership funds from 43 East 74th St. Associates. The second claim, by Richman, accused Marceca of embezzling real estate investment commissions. The debtor argued that a partner cannot embezzle partnership property and that the second claim was unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. The court denied the motion to dismiss both claims, affirming that New York partnership law establishes a fiduciary relationship allowing for nondischargeable claims for defalcation and that the statute of frauds is an affirmative defense, not a basis for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

BankruptcyNondischargeabilityEmbezzlementDefalcationFiduciary DutyPartnership LawStatute of FraudsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Adversary Proceeding
References
12
Case No. 16-35634
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2018

Trustmark Nat'l Bank v. Tegeler (In re Tegeler)

In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Trustmark National Bank sought to declare a loan to BC Gulf Coast Machine & Supply, Inc. (BCGC), personally guaranteed by debtors Sandy and Curtis Tegeler, nondischargeable. The Court found that the Tegelers engaged in a scheme to defraud Trustmark by secretly transferring all of BCGC's assets to another company, FWM Tubular & Equipment Corporation, shortly after obtaining the loan, without Trustmark's knowledge or consent, thereby impairing Trustmark's lien. Furthermore, Ms. Tegeler submitted false borrowing base certificates to draw down the loan funds, which were then diverted to FWM. The Court concluded that the Debtors' actions constituted knowing and fraudulent falsehoods, false pretenses, actual fraud, and willful and malicious injury, justifying the piercing of BCGC's corporate veil. Consequently, the debt, totaling $256,716.54 plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, was declared nondischargeable for both Sandy and Curtis Tegeler, jointly and severally.

BankruptcyDischargeabilityFraudFalse RepresentationFalse PretensesActual FraudWillful and Malicious InjuryCorporate Veil PiercingGuaranty LiabilityAsset Transfer
References
160
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. Meadows (In Re Meadows)

The case involves Jill Lynn Meadows, former spouse of Debtor Anthony Drew Meadows, filing a complaint to determine the dischargeability of certain debts and for relief from stay in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Debtor received $60,000 from a personal injury lawsuit related to his employment under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. A divorce decree from the 360th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, stipulated that one-fourth of these proceeds would go to Mrs. Meadows for their daughter Maegan's use, and another fourth would be held in trust for Maegan. The Debtor filed for bankruptcy, claiming the remaining proceeds were exempt under 33 U.S.C. § 916. Mrs. Meadows argued the funds were for child support, thus nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), and sought relief from stay. The Court concluded that the state court judgment clearly intended the funds for child support, which aligns with public policy and relevant bankruptcy code sections that prevent the discharge of child support obligations. Therefore, the Court ruled that one-half of the net proceeds from the personal injury suit and $1,250.00 in attorney fees constituted nondischargeable child support.

BankruptcyDischargeabilityChild SupportLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExemptionsPreemptionDivorce DecreeFamily LawPersonal Injury SettlementConstructive Trust
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 22 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational