Jendusa-Nicolai v. Larsen
677 F.3d 320
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Larsen, convicted of attempted murder, inflicted severe injuries on his ex-wife, Jendusa-Nicolai, including a miscarriage and amputation of her toes.
- Jendusa-Nicolai, her husband, and two daughters secured a Wisconsin state court judgment totaling $3.4 million against Larsen for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the husband and daughters earning $300,000 for loss of consortium.
- Larsen filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy seeking discharge of these judgment debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
- Collateral estoppel barred Larsen from re-litigating underlying factual findings from the Wisconsin judgment in the bankruptcy proceeding.
- The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, held the debts nondischargeable as willful and malicious injuries under § 523(a)(6).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that Larsen’s debts related to the intentional torts and their consequences were nondischargeable, and discussed the varied definitions of “willful and malicious” across circuits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6) requires intent to injure | Jendusa-Nicolai argues Larsen intended the injuries; thus nondischargeable. | Larsen contends not all intentional acts are nondischargeable; the injury must be intended or substantially certain. | Debt nondischargeable; willful and malicious injury includes intended harm or substantially certain consequences. |
| Whether punitive damages and loss of consortium are nondischargeable as willful and malicious debts | Punitive damages and loss of consortium arise from willful injury and should be nondischargeable. | Defendant argues these components are derivative or punishments not directly linked to willful injury. | Punitive damages and loss of consortium claims are nondischargeable when derived from a willful and malicious injury. |
| Whether the Wisconsin judgment supports nondischargeability given varying circuit definitions | Wisconsin judgment establishes willful injury; should be nondischargeable. | Definitions across circuits create ambiguity; but the underlying injury was willful. | Court upholds nondischargeability; recognizes circuit definition variance but confirms outcome. |
| Whether the losses to the ex-wife’s family are derivative and nondischargeable | Loss of consortium claims are derivative from the wife’s injury and thus nondischargeable. | Derivative claims still stem from the willful injury; cannot undermine discharge. | Derivative loss of consortium debts are nondischargeable when arising from willful and malicious injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grogan v. Garner, 498 F.3d 279 (U.S. 1991) (establishes standard for nondischargeability and fresh-start policy)
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1998) (willful and malicious injury requires intent or certain injury, not mere recklessness)
- Williams v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520, 337 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2003) (discusses scope of willful and malicious injury and intent requirements)
- Wheeler v. Laudani, 783 F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1986) (defines willful and malicious with intentional conduct and lack of just cause)