Hermosilla v. Hermosilla
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28718
D. Mass.2011Background
- Alex Hermosilla filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy; Cristina Hermosilla sought to except a personal-injury debt from discharge under §523(a)(6).
- divorce proceedings in Massachusetts Probate Court culminated in a final divorce, with a 2005 judgment and a 2007 Stipulation waiving alimony and “any and all claims” presented in divorce proceedings.
- Alex assaulted Cristina on July 20, 2003; a criminal conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon followed in 2004.
- Cristina’s bankruptcy complaint initially sought discharge-exemption for spousal support, attorney’s fees/health premiums, and unliquidated damages for willful and malicious injury from the assault.
- The Bankruptcy Court granted Cristina summary judgment on the §523(a)(6) claim, finding willful and malicious injury admitted; the court sanctioned arguments and remanded for sanctions, with the district court ultimately dismissing the appeal for Rule 8009 noncompliance and awarding sanctions.
- The district court remanded for sanctions and expressed intent to determine the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction to decide dischargeability | Hermosilla—lack of judgment on Cristina's tort claims precludes dischargeability | Hermosilla—§101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly; dischargeability can be decided without judgment | Jurisdiction affirmed; dischargeability able to be decided despite no judgment on the tort claim |
| Statute of limitations tolling | Hermosilla—limitations had run | Hermosilla—code tolling sections 108(c), 362(c)(2) toll the period during bankruptcy | Tolled during bankruptcy; limitations not yet run |
| Waiver/Res judicata via Stipulation or Probate Court alimony [and] waiver of tort claims | Hermosilla—Stipulation/ Probate Court precluded later tort claims | Hermosilla—Probate Court lacks authority to decide tort claims; Heacock controls; waiver ineffective | Waiver/res judicata not controlling; no bar to dischargeability under §523(a)(6) |
| Summary judgment propriety given remaining disputes | Hermosilla—genuine disputes existed about injury and intent | Stipulation admissions establish willful and malicious injury as a matter of law | Summary judgment proper; admissions sufficient to show willful and malicious injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21 (Mass. 1988) (preclusion not applicable to tort claims arising from divorce)
- Buker v. Nat'l Mgmt. Corp., 16 Mass.App.Ct. 36 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (tolling during bankruptcy is nuanced; not controlling here)
- In re Maloni, 282 B.R. 727 (1st Cir. BAP 2002) (frivolous-appeal standards; sanctions considerations)
- Great Road Serv. Cent. Inc., 304 B.R. 547 (1st Cir. BAP 2004) (fee-santions framework under Rule 8020)
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) (clear-theory standard for dischargeability)
- Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (statutory interpretation of dischargeability)
- Printy v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 110 F.3d 853 (1st Cir. 1997) (summary-judgment standard in bankruptcy)