598 B.R. 315
Bankr. W.D. Okla.2019Background
- Brothers Brandon (debtor, attorney) and Jason Burris (creditor) engaged in prolonged, acrimonious probate litigation after their father's 2009 death involving a contested personal representative and mother's claim for back child support.
- Brandon (Burris) filed objections to the appointed personal representative (their brother) and pursued discovery, including an extended, contentious deposition of Jason; Brandon is an attorney and represented other family members in parts of the dispute.
- The probate court found Brandon's conduct vexatious, in bad faith, and sanctioned him $29,500 for attorney fees; appellate court affirmed and additional appellate fees/collection costs were later fixed, producing a state-court money judgment.
- Jason filed this adversary proceeding in Brandon's 2017 Chapter 7 bankruptcy seeking a nondischargeability determination under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury); the amount of the debt was established but intent remained contested.
- At trial the bankruptcy court focused on Brandon's subjective intent to injure Jason, considering deposition scheduling tactics, direct communications with a represented party, and the family feud context; the court found Brandon acted to vindicate their mother rather than to intentionally injure Jason.
- Holding: The court concluded Jason failed to prove Brandon committed a willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6); the sanctions judgment is dischargeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state-court sanctions judgment is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) | Jason: Brandon's conduct was wantonly vexatious, in bad faith, and intended to impose fees and injure Jason, so debt is willful and malicious | Brandon: His actions were aimed at vindicating their mother's claim and protecting the estate, not to intentionally injure Jason; any improper conduct was zealotry/emotion, not intent to harm | Judgment dischargeable; creditor failed to prove subjective intent to cause injury required by § 523(a)(6) |
| Whether attorney misconduct and sanctions equate to willful and malicious injury for § 523(a)(6) purposes | Jason: Probate court findings of bad faith and unprofessional conduct show the necessary elements | Brandon: State-law sanction findings do not prove the subjective intent required by Kawaauhau; bad faith sanctions can be based on objective standards | Court: State-court findings insufficient; Section 523(a)(6) requires subjective intent to injure and "willful and malicious" is a heightened standard |
| Whether deposition scheduling and direct contact with represented party show intent to injure | Jason: Brandon purposely complicated scheduling, deposed on irrelevant topics, and contacted Jason despite counsel—conduct designed to run up fees | Brandon: Scheduling disputes and direct communications occurred in heated family litigation context and aimed at proving issues about PR integrity, not harming Jason | Court: Conduct was improper and unprofessional but explained by family feud motive; not proven to be intended to injure Jason |
| Burden of proof and collateral estoppel effect of state judgment | Jason: State judgment establishes liability and supports nondischargeability | Brandon: State judgment did not resolve subjective intent for federal nondischargeability standard | Court: Creditor bears burden by preponderance; bankruptcy court may not give collateral estoppel effect to state judgment lacking findings on debtor's subjective intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (sets creditor's burden by preponderance and explains "honest but unfortunate debtor" principle)
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (defines "willful and malicious" injury requires intentional act causing intentional injury)
- Bellco First Fed. Credit Union v. Kaspar (In re Kaspar), 125 F.3d 1358 (exceptions to discharge construed narrowly)
- Jendusa-Nicolai v. Larsen (In re Larsen), 677 F.3d 320 (articulates interpretation of "willful and malicious" including knowing lack of legal justification and desire or substantial certainty of injury)
- O'Melveny & Myers v. Hopkins (In re Hopkins), 201 F.3d 448 (affirmed nondischargeability for bad-faith litigation in certain contexts but acknowledged bad-faith sanction findings may not always equal § 523(a)(6) intent)