Johnson v. Trewartha, 673 B.R. 411

Kaylee Lynne Johnson (Debtor) filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after being sued for wrongful death by Kurt Trewartha, special administrator for the estate of her deceased husband, Joshua Ray Trewartha.
Joshua died of a gunshot wound that was ruled a suicide. Administrator alleges that Johnson's negligent or reckless behavior, including supplying alcohol and failing to secure her firearm, contributed to Joshua’s death.
The wrongful death claim was filed in state court before Johnson's bankruptcy petition; Johnson then preemptively sought a determination in bankruptcy court that the wrongful death claim was discharged.
The bankruptcy trustee found Johnson’s Chapter 7 case to be a “no asset” case, so the estate’s creditor (Administrator) wasn’t required to file a proof of claim.
The court considered whether the wrongful death claim, as pled, met the standard for nondischargeability based on "willful and malicious injury" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
The Administrator may still seek to assert new claims, but any such additional claims face statutory, procedural, and factual constraints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the wrongful death claim nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6)?	Johnson argues the state complaint alleges only negligence, not the "willful and malicious" conduct required for § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability.	Administrator asserts that the complaint alleges intentionality or, at a minimum, recklessness sufficient for nondischargeability, and that the Seventh Circuit doesn’t require intent to harm.	The court agreed with Johnson: the state complaint alleges negligence/recklessness, not "willful and malicious injury" as interpreted by Geiger, so the claim was discharged.
Can the court rule on unasserted future claims?	Johnson seeks to bar further potential claims as nondischargeable.	Administrator contends more claims may be timely asserted in state court.	The court only rules on the claim as pled; Administrator may attempt to assert additional claims, subject to constraints.
Should the automatic stay be modified to permit assertion of new claims?	Johnson’s position not directly stated; seeks discharge and preclusion of all claims.	Administrator seeks modification to assert intentional tort claims if warranted.	Court will partially lift the automatic stay to permit pursuit of further claims if properly authorized and within limitations.

Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) (Supreme Court held that § 523(a)(6) requires proof the debtor actually intended to cause injury, not just acted intentionally)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes the standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim)
Buchanan–Moore v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2009) (motions under Rule 12(c) reviewed under the same standard as 12(b)(6))