667 B.R. 760
Bankr. D.N.H.2025Background
- Christine Marie Ansin and Robert Ansin were divorced in November 2021, with the state court awarding Robert the marital home, all its contents, and the contents of a storage unit (except Christine's separate property).
- After the divorce, Christine removed or allowed others to remove nearly all property from the awarded home and storage unit, contrary to the state court's final decree.
- The state court found Christine in contempt for willful violation of its property award, ordering her to pay $195,955.49 in damages to Robert for the missing property.
- Christine did not appeal the contempt order, which became final.
- Christine then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Robert filed a two-count adversary proceeding, seeking that the contempt judgment be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) (embezzlement/larceny) and (a)(6) (willful and malicious injury).
- This opinion resolves cross-motions for summary judgment on nondischargeability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should contempt findings be given preclusive effect? | State court’s findings should preclude relitigation and establish nondischargeability | Arguments exist over state of mind, property ownership, differences in legal elements | Issue preclusion applies; findings are binding on relevant issues |
| Count I: Is the debt nondischargeable for embezzlement/larceny under § 523(a)(4)? | Contempt order's findings satisfy elements for embezzlement/larceny | Elements like fraudulent intent not met; no unlawful initial taking | Summary judgment denied: no finding of fraud or unlawful initial taking |
| Count II: Is the debt nondischargeable for willful & malicious injury under § 523(a)(6)? | State court found willful/malicious disregard for court's order, injury caused | Contends mental incapacity, ownership unresolved, or claim preclusion inapplicable | Summary judgment granted: requirements met for nondischargeability |
| Can the findings of the contempt order be revisited or challenged here? | No, final state court judgments are binding | Argues that factual findings are disputable due to mental health and pending appeals | Rooker-Feldman bars reopening state court factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1998) (willful and malicious injury requires intent to cause injury, not just act)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (federal courts must give full faith and credit to state court judgments)
- Sherman v. Potapov, 603 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2010) (definition of embezzlement under the Bankruptcy Code)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (explaining scope of Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 750 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard; material vs. genuine fact issues)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz (In re Schwartz), 409 B.R. 240 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2008) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine in bankruptcy)