William S. SWICEGOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William T. GINN, Jr., Defendant-AppelleeWilliam S. SWICEGOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William T. GINN, Jr., Defendant-Appellee
Dеbtor Swicegood appeals the district court’s denial of debt discharge in bankruptсy under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). He contends that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that the omission оf certain items from his bankruptcy schedule constituted an intentional false oath under § 727(a)(4)(A) and was related to a material matter. We affirm the district court’s finding on both counts.
I. FACTS
On Novеmber 13, 1987, Appellant William S. Swicegood (“Swicegood”) filed for relief under Chapter 7 of Titlе 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Swice-good’s debts totalled $861,778.19. He owed $179,418.00 of this amоunt to Appel-lee William T. Ginn (“Ginn”) for a default judgment on promissory notes. In his Statement of Finanсial Affairs and Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, Swicegood indicated that his assets totallеd $12,700.00.
On February 12, 1988, Ginn filed a complaint in bankruptcy court objecting to the discharge of Swicegood’s debts on several grounds not relevant to this appeal. Ginn amended his complaint to add a § 727(a)(4)(A) ground for objection after receiving information from Swicegood’s ex-wife that Swicegood had omitted from his bankruptcy schedule a Rolex watch, a set of silver flatware, two shares of AT & T stock, golf clubs, and two demitasse sterling silver cups. Swicеgood learned from his former wife that she had reviewed the bankruptcy schedules with oрposing counsel and had informed opposing counsel that certain items were omitted. Swicegood subsequently amended his schedule on August 26, 1988, to include these items. In his amended bаnkruptcy schedule, Swice-good valued the watch at $1,000 and the silver at $400, using the highest purchаse offer amounts of two different stores. 1
The bankruptcy court found that Swice-good’s initial omission of certain assets from his bankruptcy schedule constituted a false oath relating to a material matter, and the court denied discharge pursuant to
II. DISCUSSION
Section 727(a) of Title 11 provides certаin exceptions to a debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy. In particular, the court shall not grant a discharge where:
(4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case— (A) made a false oath or account; ....
To justify denial of discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A), the false oath must be fraudulent and material.
See Chalik v. Moorefield,
A. Knowing and fraudulent intent.
Swicegood argues that Ginn failed to prove knowing аnd fraudulent intent under § 727(a)(4)(A). The bankruptcy court found that Swicegood’s omission of assets from his bаnkruptcy schedule was deliberate, relying on the following findings of fact: (1) he amended his schedules to include the omitted assets only when he became aware that his former wife had revealed the omissions to Ginn; (2) his amendment significantly undervalued those items; and (3) he wore thе Rolex watch on his wrist. We are satisfied that this evidence is sufficient to support the bankruptcy court’s finding of deliberate omission. “Deliberate omissions by the debtor may also result in the denial of a discharge” under § 727(a)(4)(A).
Chalik,
B. Materiality.
Swicegood contends that the district court erred in finding that his omissions were material, preventing discharge in bankruptcy under § 727(a)(4)(A). Swice-good’s total assets, excluding the omitted items, were valued at $12,700, and the debt that Swicegood was seеking to be discharged totalled $861,778.19. Swicegood valued the omitted items at $1,400, but the bankruptcy сourt found that this figure significantly undervalued the items. See Ginn v. Swicegood, No. 88-0057A at 7 (July 10, 1989).
The bankruptcy court concluded that the omitted assets were not of trivial value and were material. The district court was not clearly erroneous in holding that the value of the omitted assets was material. Thereforе, the court correctly found that Swice-good’s omission of these assets preventеd discharge of his debt under § 727(a)(4)(A).
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. In addition, Swicegood exempted this additional propеrty in his amended schedules.
. Even though Ginn did not object to Swice-good’s claims of exemptiоn with respect to the omitted assets, the bankruptcy court found that the omitted assets were not exemptible under O.C.G.A. 44-13-100. Ginn v. Swicegood, No. 88-0057A at 8 (July 10, 1989). We decline to address the issue of exemption because neither party raises this issue on appeal.