Abbott v. Regents of University of California, 74-1223
| Decision Date | 21 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1223,74-1223 |
| Citation | 516 F.2d 830 |
| Parties | John Hancock ABBOTT, Bankrupt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Objection Creditor, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before MOORE, * HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
We are asked in this appeal to reverse a decision of the district court which affirmed a determination of the bankruptcy judge that fraud precluded the discharge in bankruptcy of a student loan. The bankruptcy judge had given judgment in favor of the University Regents against the bankrupt. We affirm.
While a student at two state colleges in 1965 and 1966, Abbott obtained National Defense Student Loans totalling more than $5,000, all of which were discharged in bankruptcy in April 1967. About the same time, he executed a renewal note to one college, reaffirming the debt due it. Having transferred to the University of California at Berkeley, Abbott applied in June of 1967 for another loan from that institution for $9,000. He failed to list any of the previous loans in his application. The act authorizing such loans (20 U.S.C. § 425(a)) provided that the total of all loans for all years to one person may not exceed $10,000.
Abbott's second petition in bankruptcy was filed in 1972 and he listed the loan from the University of California. The University Regents objected to the discharge in bankruptcy, because of Abbott's fraudulent concealment of the earlier loans from the other institutions.
Before the bankruptcy judge, the University Regents argued that Abbott knowingly concealed his history of prior loans; noted that the loan application clearly required a listing of prior National Student Defense Loans; and that the University relied on the misrepresentation; and that the University could not have lawfully authorized a loan raising Abbott's NSDL indebtedness over the statutory maximum of $10,000.
Abbott responded, and argues here, that he did not list the prior National Student Defense Loans because an attorney had informed him that his 1967 bankruptcy proceeding had discharged any legal obligations resulting from the loans. In other words, he claimed that he had no intent to defraud. After hearing this testimony and observing appellant's demeanor, the bankruptcy judge concluded that the "Bankrupt concealed the previous loans intentionally. . . ."
The evidence supports the bankruptcy judge's determination that Abbott failed to disclose information with an intent to deceive the University. A failure to disclose prior loans on a loan application constitutes a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Turner
...17(a)(2) or its predecessors to bar a discharge, the plaintiff must prove actual, or positive fraud.3See Abbott v. Regents of the University of California, 516 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1975); Wright v. Lubinko, supra; Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 709, 24 L.Ed. 586 (1877). Therefore, the addition o......
-
Matter of Thomas
...order for § 17(a)(2) to bar the discharge of a debt the plaintiff must prove actual or positive fraud. Abbott v. Regents of the University of California, 516 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1975); Wright v. Lubinko, 515 F.2d 260 (9th Cir. 1975). The legislative history of § 523(a)(2)(A) indicates that C......
-
In re Whiting
...to include outstanding obligations on a loan application renders the statement materially false. See Abbott v. Regents of University of California, 516 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1975); In re Schlickmann, 6 B.R. 281 Section 523(a)(2) next requires that the creditor "reasonably relied" upon the misr......
-
Nelson, Matter of
...and comports with the current law on the subject. See 1A Collier on Bankruptcy P 17.16 at 1631-1642; Abbott v. Regents of University of California, 516 F.2d 830, 831 (9th Cir. 1975) wherein it is "The evidence supports the bankruptcy judge's determination that Abbott failed to disclose info......