Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla)
450 B.R. 276
Bankr. D. Mass.2011Background
- Cristina Hermosilla sued Debtor for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6) based on a domestic-violence incident; the case hinges on admitted facts in the Amended Joint Pre-Trial Statement, signed by Baker for the Debtor.
- Pre-Trial Order required admissions to govern trial; the Amended Joint Pre-Trial Statement contained admissions the court treated as controlling facts.
- Baker argued there were disputed facts (intent) and separately invoked a waiver theory related to the Probate Court divorce proceedings.
- Judge Hermosilla rejected all Baker’s defenses as unsupported by the admissions and law and prepared a decision on summary judgment.
- The District Court remanded for sanctions determination after ruling the Debtor’s appeal frivolous; Baker then opposed the Fee Application and the court awarded Cristina $15,306.25 in fees and imposed $9,000 in sanctions against Baker.
- This decision follows a district-mandated lodestar analysis and imposes sanctions payable to the Clerk of Court for Rule 9011 violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker violated Rule 9011 by advancing a time‑barred defense | Hermosilla | Baker argued the statute of limitations issue | Yes, violation found |
| Whether Baker violated Rule 9011 by opposing well‑established precedent on waiver | Hermosilla | Baker relied on Apostolicas/Heacock theories | Yes, violation found |
| Whether Baker violated Rule 9011 by misinterpreting Geiger on intent | Hermosilla | Baker claimed lack of specific intent | Yes, violation found |
| What sanctions and fees are appropriate after a frivolous appeal | Hermosilla | Baker should not be sanctioned or should pay less | Sanctions of $9,000 against Baker; Cristina awarded $15,306.25 in fees for the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) (intent and substantial certainty standard for nondischargeability)
- Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21 (1988) (probate court lack of jurisdiction over torts; res judicata/ collateral estoppel nuances)
- Apostolicas Properties Corp. v. Richman, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 671 (1990) (relation of divorce findings to tort claims; res judicata/estoppel considerations)
- Buker v. Nat'l Mgmt. Corp., 16 Mass.App.Ct. 36 (1983) (tolling of statute of limitations pre‑ and post‑code era; relevance cautioned)
- In re Byers, 304 B.R. 1 (2004) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) amendments not applicable; admissions in joint pre-trial)
- Fox of Boylston Street Ltd. P'ship v. Mayor of Boston, 418 Mass. 816 (1994) (briefly discussed §108 tolling; state court discretion)