504 B.R. 738
Bankr. D. Conn.2014Background
- Consolidated adversary proceedings under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6) where Parris seeks nondischargeability of a District Court Judgment debt against Delaney and Pappas.
- District Court Case No. 3:10CV1128 (WWE) resulted in default judgment for Parris and a damages award after a damages hearing.
- District Court Judgment entered Feb. 10, 2012, totaling $262,407 in compensatory and punitive damages plus $87,392.50 in attorneys’ fees; later related fees were addressed separately.
- Parris, a disabled plaintiff with a live-in aide, alleged defendants’ conduct—eviction threats, failure to fix septic system, and coercive lease tactics—violated FHA, CUTPA, and contract claims.
- Defendants’ bankruptcy filings occurred after the District Court Judgment; Debtors did not respond to the summary judgment motion, enabling Local Rule 56 admission of facts.
- Court grants summary judgment, applying collateral estoppel to preclude relitigation of §523(a)(6) issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation of §523(a)(6) nondischargeability | Parris seeks preclusion of all §523(a)(6) issues | Delaney and Pappas did not participate to avoid waiver | Yes, collateral estoppel applies |
| Whether the District Court Judgment resolved the necessary §523(a)(6) issues | District Court findings on willful/malicious conduct identical to current issues | Judgment does not bind now since it was in a different posture | Yes; issues identical and necessary to merits |
| Whether the Defendants acted willfully and maliciously under §523(a)(6) | District Court damages hearing established willful/malicious conduct | No willful/malicious intent proven | Yes; willful and malicious conduct shown |
| Whether malice is established independent of wilfulness under §523(a)(6) | Malice inferred from actions contrary to duties and severe harm | Reckless disregard alone insufficient | Yes; malice shown alongside willfulness |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given admitted facts under Local Rule 56(a) | Granted; facts deemed admitted and support estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (preponderance standard for nondischargeability; collateral estoppel context)
- Ball v. A.O. Smith Corp., 451 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2006) (defines willful and malice elements for §523(a)(6) and malice may be inferred)
- In re Stelluti, 94 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1996) (malice may be implied from conduct in context of circumstances)
- Yash Raj Films (USA) v. Ahmed, 359 B.R. 34 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (punitive damages context for willful/malicious discrimination under FHA)
- Space Hunters, Inc. v. United States, 429 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 2005) (defines punitive damages standard for intentional discrimination under FHA)