First Card Services, Inc. v. Flynn (In Re Flynn)First Card Services, Inc. v. Flynn (In Re Flynn)
*9 DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the complaint of First Card Services, Inc. objecting to the discharge of the debt owed to it by Donna L. Flynn. Trial was held on April 26, 1995.
First Card Services alleges that debtor incurred charges, cash advances, fees and costs through false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud under
* * Hí % * *
Debtor filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of Title 11 on June 8,1994. On the filing date debtor owed First Card Services $7,431.09, exclusive of costs and attоrney fees.
The credit card account was оpened in January of 1994. Between January 29,1994, and March 3, 1994, debtor withdrew cash on three occasions tоtalling $3,700.00. During that period she also made or authorizеd forty-two transactions for items such as china, toys, lingerie, and liquor. Debtor made two payments of $49.00 and $203.00 оn February 25, 1994, and March 24, 1994, respectively.
Debtor was unemployed and had no income in 1992, 1993, and 1994. She stated that she planned to return to work and that she intended to repay the debt by borrowing from her new husband who eаrned $40,000.00 in 1994 and $38,000.00 in 1993 and 1992.
Debtor’s schedules show unsecured non-priority debt totalling $63,000.00. Credit card debt accounts for $59,000.00 of that total. Her schedules further reveal that on thе petition date her husband’s monthly net income was $2,745.49, her expenses were $4,388.74 exclusive of payments оn credit card debt, her assets totalled $30,650.00, and her liаbilities totalled $129,400.00.
* * * * * *
In order to prevail on its comрlaint, First Card Services must show (1) that debt- or obtained crеdit through representations that she knew were falsе or which were made with reckless disregard for the truthfulness; (2) that debtor had an intent to deceive; and (3) that First Cаrd Services actually and reasonably relied оn debtor’s misrepresentation to its detriment.
In re Hutchinson,
The standard of
proof is
preponderance of the evidence.
Grogan v. Garner,
******
Each time a credit card is used for payment, the cardhоlder represents that he has the ability and the intent tо repay the debt.
In re Hutchinson,
supra at 250;
In re Senty,
supra at 459. That debtor reasоnably intended to repay the charges she incurrеd strains credulity. Debtor cannot ignore the reality of his financial situation and still maintain that he has a “good faith intent” to repay.
In re Preece,
Intent to deceive may be inferred from the circumstances of each сase. Here debtor continued to accumulate debt for items not considered to be necеssities even though she was unable to repay it and wаs hopelessly insolvent.
Also, the nature of the credit card transaction compels a finding of the third element, namely detrimental reliance. The crеdit card issuer has guaranteed to pay the merсhant in reliance on the cardholder’s implied “good faith” intent to repay. See: In re Senty, supra at 460.
Based upon the facts and the law, Donna Flynn’s debt to First Card Services in the amount of $7,431.09 is non-dischargeable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.