In re Hamilton
- Reporters:
- , ,
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This appeal from the district court‘s affirmance of an order by the bankruptcy court presents one issue, namely, is a Virginia jury‘s finding of “willful and wanton” conduct identical, for collateral estoppel purposes, with the finding of “willful and malicious” conduct required to make a debt nondischargeable under
The bankruptcy court found that the term “willful and malicious,” as defined in the Tenth Circuit cases In re Posta, 866 F.2d 364, 367 (10th. Cir.1989), and In re Grey, 902 F.2d 1479, 1481 (10th Cir.1990), was substantially identical in meaning to the term “willful and wanton,” as explained in the instructions given the Virginia jury. Thus, the debtor is precluded from litigating the issue of whether his debt to the appellees is dischargeable. The district court affirmed this holding. We can find no error in this decision and affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the bankruptcy court‘s opinion.
AFFIRMED.