United States v. Spurlin
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24861
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- In 2005, Brian and Debra Spurlin filed a joint bankruptcy petition listing only $3,364 and one entity (Spurlin & Associates, Inc.).
- They concealed interests in Golden Choice and Golden Athletics and assets like three cars and the Tennyson Oaks Property; undisclosed accounts were also involved.
- Proceeds from the Tennyson Oaks sale were diverted to multiple entities and individuals, with funds eventually traced to the Spurlins and to International Oil, all undisclosed in filings.
- Mr. Spurlin acted as their key actor, directing transactions and interacting with SMA (South Michigan Avenue, LLC) regarding $705,000 held in escrow for a supposed real estate financing plan.
- At the 341 meeting, the Spurlins signed a perjury-pledged questionnaire; Mrs. Spurlin did not contest or correct inaccuracies in the disclosures.
- The government charged both spouses with concealment of bankruptcy assets and false oaths; Mr. Spurlin also faced bankruptcy fraud related to the SMA funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of spouse filing under a general power of attorney | Ballard permits filing via power of attorney to protect assets. | Raymond/Brown require direct authorization or ratification; not always permissible. | General power may be used; petition ratified by conduct and circumstances. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Mrs. Spurlin’s concealment of assets | Evidence showed omissions and knowing concealment. | Lacked direct ownership or filing by Mrs. Spurlin; insufficient to prove concealment. | Sufficient evidence supports concealment conviction against Mrs. Spurlin. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false statements in bankruptcy (count 2) for Mrs. Spurlin | Question 5 was false and knowingly answered. | Ambiguity in interpretation of Question 5; potential acquittal. | Sufficient evidence to affirm Mrs. Spurlin’s false statement conviction; not sufficient to affirm Mr. Spurlin’s. |
| Whether Mr. Spurlin’s bankruptcy fraud conviction stands | Conduct with SMA showed a scheme to defraud concealed via bankruptcy. | Fraud occurred prior to filing; statute interpreted narrowly. | Court applied plain-meaning interpretation; conviction upheld for Spurlin on bankruptcy fraud. |
| Multiplici ty of counts for Mrs. Spurlin | Counts 1 and 3 target distinct conduct under different statutory elements. | Potential overlap would render multiplicity error. | No multiplicity error; counts rested on different elements and facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Daniels, 247 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2001) (sufficiency review and standard of review for conviction)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Found. Health Servs., Inc., 524 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying standard of review and law on questions of law)
- United States v. Cluck, 143 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 1998) (multiplicity analysis for overlapping §152(1) and §152(3) offenses)
- United States v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 1994) (elements-based approach to multiplicity and charges)