543 B.R. 166
Bankr. M.D. Penn.2015Background
- On Sept. 27, 2010, Watkins’s wife (Decedent) died after a motor-vehicle collision in which Debtor crossed into oncoming traffic; Debtor fled the scene and was later criminally charged and pleaded guilty to multiple counts including homicide by vehicle.
- Watkins (individually and as administrator) brought wrongful-death and survival claims and settled; a state court entered judgment for $85,000 on Dec. 12, 2014.
- Watkins sought a bankruptcy ruling that the $85,000 judgment is nondischargeable in Debtor’s Chapter 13 case under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(4), (2), and (3).
- Debtor filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the three-count complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The bankruptcy court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but required plausible factual pleading for statutory elements (Twombly/Iqbal standard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watkins) | Defendant's Argument (Watkins referred to as Debtor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment is nondischargeable as restitution/damages for willful or malicious injury under § 1328(a)(4) | Debtor’s conduct (drinking, crossing lane, fatal collision, criminal conviction) shows willful or malicious injury causing death | Criminal conviction/settlement insufficient to plead deliberate intent to cause death; mere intoxication or negligence/recklessness is not § 1328(a)(4) willfulness | Dismissed Count I — complaint fails to plead willful (intentional/substantially-certain) injury required by Geiger/Conte |
| Whether the judgment is nondischargeable under § 1328(a)(2) (incorporating § 523(a)(9)) for death caused by operation of a vehicle while intoxicated | Watkins alleges Debtor was drinking earlier and was intoxicated at the time, supporting nondischargeability for DUI-related death | Debtor points to flight and lack of contemporaneous BAC test as undermining intoxication proof | Denied dismissal as to Count II — allegations suffice at pleading stage; plaintiff may prove intoxication at trial |
| Whether criminal restitution included in Debtor’s sentence renders the debt nondischargeable under § 1328(a)(3) | Watkins alleges Debtor was ordered to pay criminal restitution as part of sentence | Sentencing order attached shows fines and costs but is silent as to restitution; no factual support in complaint | Dismissed Count III — failure to plausibly allege criminal restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual matter sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (willful injury requires deliberate or intentional injury, not merely intentional act)
- Conte v. Gautam (In re Conte), 33 F.3d 303 (acts substantially certain to produce injury qualify as willful)
- Lugo v. Paulsen, 886 F.2d 602 (Congressional purpose of § 523(a)(9) to deter drunk driving)
- Joy v. Healthcare C.M.S., 534 F. Supp. 2d 482 (Twombly/Iqbal does not impose probability requirement at pleading; permits reasonable expectation discovery will reveal needed evidence)