Walz v. Smith (In re Smith), 592 B.R. 390

Debtor (Defendant) promoted Atlanta-area events and sent mass automated (blast) text messages to potential attendees between Dec 2012 and Nov 2015; plaintiff received 112 texts, asked to stop, and registered on the national Do-Not-Call list.
Plaintiff sued in state court (TCPA claims) in Aug 2015; that case was administratively closed in Mar 2018 with no judgment entered against Defendant.
Defendant filed Chapter 7 on Apr 4, 2017; Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint (July 2017) seeking (1) a determination that any TCPA debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and treble damages, and (2) denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) for failure to keep business records.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking liability and nondischargeability of $112,000 (and trebling to $336,000) and denial of discharge; Defendant admitted possible recklessness in sending texts but denied intent to injure and contended promotions were a hobby and records were not necessary.
The bankruptcy court found genuine disputes of material fact on both willful-and-malicious intent (§523(a)(6)) and adequacy/necessity of records (§727(a)(3)), and therefore denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TCPA-based damages are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) ("willful and malicious injury")	Plaintiff argues repeated textings after cease requests and Do-Not-Call registration show willful and malicious injury warranting nondischargeability and trebling.	Defendant contends he acted, at most, recklessly or negligently, did not intend to injure, and had no subjective desire or substantial-certainty belief that texts would injure Plaintiff.	Denied summary judgment—disputed facts remain whether Defendant had the subjective intent or substantial-certainty belief required for §523(a)(6).
Whether to deny Chapter 7 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) for failure to keep/preserve adequate records	Plaintiff asserts Defendant failed to keep records of compensation from promotions, preventing ascertainment of financial condition.	Defendant says promotions were a hobby, not a business, and denies that missing records were necessary to reconstruct finances.	Denied summary judgment—Plaintiff failed to prove as a matter of undisputed fact that records were not kept or that their absence made financial reconstruction impossible.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: genuine dispute standard)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (burden to prove nondischargeability by preponderance)
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (§523(a)(6) requires deliberate intent to cause injury)
Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank, 866 F.3d 1273 (TCPA protects consumers from unwanted calls/texts)
Alea London Ltd. v. American Home Services, Inc., 638 F.3d 768 (trebling under TCPA is permissive and addressed by courts)