James Perry v. Stephen Judge, 630 B.R. 338

On Jan. 31, 2015 at the Derailed Pour House (Grand Junction, CO), Stephen Judge unexpectedly struck James Perry in the head with a glass coffee mug while Perry’s back was turned; the mug broke and a melee ensued.
Video surveillance of the fight captured Judge as the initial aggressor; Perry sustained face, neck, and hand injuries and received hospital treatment.
Judge later pled guilty to third-degree assault; Perry (and Baca) obtained a state-court judgment after Judge defaulted: $150,000 to Perry and $75,000 to Baca.
Judge filed Chapter 7; Perry sued in bankruptcy court to except the state-court judgment from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury).
The Bankruptcy Court found Judge’s testimony not credible, ruled Judge acted willfully and maliciously, and excepted the entire Perry judgment from discharge; Judge appealed alleging (inter alia) that Perry’s hand injury resulted from Perry’s own defensive act and damages should be apportioned.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, holding Judge’s initial intentional assault proximately caused all of Perry’s injuries and § 523(a)(6) bars discharge of the full state-court award.

Issue	Perry's Argument	Judge's Argument	Held
Whether Perry’s injuries were the result of a willful and malicious act by Judge under § 523(a)(6)	Judge intentionally assaulted Perry with a mug; resulting injuries were willful and malicious and nondischargeable	Attacking was intentional but some injuries (hand) resulted from Perry’s defensive strike, not Judge’s intent	Affirmed: Judge was the initial aggressor; the mug strike was deliberate and substantially certain to cause injury, satisfying willfulness and malice
Whether the full state-court judgment must be excepted or apportioned for injuries not directly intended by Judge	All damages flowing from the non-dischargeable conduct are nondischargeable; the hand injury was a foreseeable consequence of Judge’s attack	The hand injury was caused by Perry’s defensive act and thus should be apportioned out of nondischargeability	Affirmed: proximate-cause and foreseeability principles apply; absent the complaint record Judge failed to preserve apportionment argument, so entire Perry judgment was excepted

Cohen v. de la Cruz, [citation="523 U.S. 213"] (1998) (if wrongful conduct is proved, any debt arising therefrom is excepted from discharge)
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, [citation="523 U.S. 57"] (1998) ("willful" requires a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely an intentional act that leads to injury)
Panalis v. Moore, [citation="357 F.3d 1125"] (10th Cir. 2004) (§ 523(a)(6) requires proof of both willfulness and malice)
Jendusa-Nicolai v. Larsen, [citation="677 F.3d 320"] (7th Cir. 2012) (nondischargeability for intentional torts can extend to consequential damages)
Glencoe Holdings, LLC v. Bloom, [citation="622 B.R. 366"] (Bankr. D. Colo. 2020) (purpose of § 523(a)(6) is to make the creditor whole; exceptions extend to direct and consequential damages)