Brandon James Maxfield v. Janice K. Jennings, 670 F.3d 1329

Maxfield was permanently quadriplegic from a handgun’s accidental discharge; the handgun was manufactured by Bryco Arms, Inc. and distributed by B.L. Jennings, Inc., companies controlled by Bruce Jennings.
In 2001 Maxfield sued Bruce Jennings and the two companies for personal injury in California; in 2001-02 Janice Jennings and others were added as defendants in a fraud/fraudulent transfer action.
RKB Investments, formed by Bruce and Janice, held Shoreview, a multi-million dollar property, which was transferred to Anna Leah Jennings in 2002 by Janice at Bruce’s direction.
A 2003 jury awarded Maxfield over $24.7 million in damages for the personal injury; the same time Janice, Bruce, and related entities filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, later converted to Chapter 7 for Janice.
Bankruptcy court found Janice participated in a joint venture and that she conspired in the fraudulent transfer to shield Shoreview from creditors, liable for $3.9 million to Bruce’s creditors.
Maxfield later filed a § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability claim; the bankruptcy court held the conspiracy did not meet willful/malicious injury standard, but the district court reversed, holding that a co-conspirator can willfully injure under § 523(a)(6) under certain circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Shoreview transfer injured Maxfield or his property under § 523(a)(6).	Maxfield argues the transfer injured his property via the fraudulent transfer judgment.	Jennings contends no injury occurred to Maxfield’s property at the time of transfer since the judgment came later and no direct property interest was implicated at that moment.	Yes; the transfer constitutes injury to Maxfield’s property under § 523(a)(6).
Whether Janice’s conduct was willful and malicious under § 523(a)(6).	Maxfield asserts Janice knowingly conspired to transfer Shoreview to avoid creditors with intent to injure him.	Jennings contends the act alone was not enough; intent and malice must be shown and the transfer may not have been intended to injure Maxfield specifically.	Yes; Janice acted willfully and with malice, intending to keep Shoreview from creditors, satisfying § 523(a)(6).

In re Saylor, 108 F.3d 219 (9th Cir. 1997) (creditor lacking property interest cannot invoke § 523(a)(6) when no judgment exists at time of complaint)
In re Bammer, 131 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1997) (fraudulent transfer plus findings of intent support willful and malicious injury)
In re Walker, 48 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1995) (willful injury requires intentional or deliberate act; not reckless disregard)
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1998) (§ 523(a)(6) requires intent to injure, not merely negligent conduct)
In re Ikner, 883 F.2d 991 (11th Cir. 1989) (malice can be shown without specific intent to harm a particular person)
In re Fretz, 244 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing bankruptcy findings of fact versus law)
In re Builders Transp., Inc., 471 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2006) (clear error standard for factual findings; de novo for legal conclusions)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (persuasive, not binding, for extending circuit precedent)