Skinner v. Skinner (In Re Skinner)
636 F. App'x 868
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Thomas Skinner and wife Anna allegedly misappropriated Dorothy Skinner's funds and placed her in Saint Joseph's Manor, an assisted living facility.
- Dorothy was evicted for non-payment with an outstanding balance of $25,049.69 plus interest and fees.
- Saint Joseph's Manor sued Dorothy, Thomas, and William Skinner in state court to recover the balance under unjust enrichment and the Pennsylvania Support Law.
- A default judgment was entered against Thomas in the amount of $32,225.56 in the state court case.
- Thomas later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; William asserted a claim that Thomas’ debts were non-dischargeable and sought recovery against him.
- Bankruptcy Court dismissed William's complaint for lack of standing, and the District Court affirmed; on appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek dischargeability of a debt under §523(a). | William lacked standing because he is not owed a claim that could be discharged. | Thomas and Anna are liable, and William should be able to have dischargeability determined for his claim. | William lacks standing; only a party owed a claim may seek its dischargeability. |
| Validity of UFTA claim to avoid transfers. | William is a creditor of Dorothy and thus may recover fraudulent transfers. | UFTA does not create creditors and Dorothy was not unjustly enriched at William's expense. | No valid UFTA claim; William is not a creditor and cannot avoid transfers. |
| Pennsylvania Support Law as basis for non-dischargeability. | Support Law provides a basis for non-dischargeable claims. | Support Law cannot serve as the basis for dischargeability; it does not give William standing. | Support Law does not provide a basis for dischargeability and does not establish standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility review)
- Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) (only a party owed a claim may seek non-dischargeability)
- Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007) (definition of 'claim' under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A))
- In re Telegroup, Inc., 281 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2002) (appellate review of bankruptcy order; pure question of law)
- Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am. v. Pittas, 46 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (standing and apportionment under Pennsylvania Support Law)
- Gass v. Virgin Islands Tel. Corp., 311 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2002) (standing and basis for claims in context of statutes)
- Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 34 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (UFTA interpretation for fraudulent transfers)
- Wilson Area Sch. Dist. v. Skepton, 895 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (unjust enrichment; enrichment at debtor's expense)