  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
3. Embezzlement or larceny
Melquiades v. Hill (In re Hill), 390 B.R. 407 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2008) (Action for embezzlement of proceeds from sale of corporate assets belongs to corporation--not to a creditor of the corporation--and won't support S 523(a)(4) action by individual creditor.).
F. 11 U.S.C. S 523(a)(5)
G. 11 U.S.C. S 523(a)(6)
1. In general
Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Gasbarro, No. 07-4252, 2008 WL 4764118 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2008) (Bankruptcy court applied incorrect legal standard to determine whether willful and malicious injury resulted from debtor's use and transfer of corporate assets: bankruptcy court asked only whether debtor intended to injure plaintiff; "[i]t did not apply the second prong of the standard . . . whether [debtor] was substantially certain that his actions would harm [plaintiff]. . . . The evidence presented to the bankruptcy court could support an inference that [debtor] and his familymembers were raiding [the] corporate assets during the relevant period and that [debtor] was substantially certain that his actions would harm [plaintiff].").
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Zwosta (In re Zwosta), 395 B.R. 378 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008) (Use of accounts receivable to pay federal trust fund taxes constituted a use of property in which bank had an interest, but bankruptcy court erred in granting bank summary judgment on its S 523(a)(6) complaint; remand necessary to determine whether there was injury to the bank's property, and if so, whether that injury was willful and malicious.).
5. Assault or battery
Blocker v. Patch (In re Patch), 526 F.3d 1176 (8th Cir. 2008) (No rational trier of fact could conclude that debtor intended death of her three-year-old son or believed that death was substantially certain for S 523(a)(6) purposes notwithstanding that debtor knew of previous physical abuse of son by her boyfriend, debtor hid evidence of that abuse from others, debtor chose not to seek medical
©2009 Keith M. Lundin
