Bankers Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Moss (In re Moss)
Decision Date | 25 March 2019 |
Docket Number | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 18-4032-BEM,CASE NO. 18-41373-BEM |
Citation | 598 B.R. 508 |
Parties | IN RE: Michael Glenn MOSS and Rachel Lee Peterson, Debtors. Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Michael Glenn Moss, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Roberto Bazzani, Weener & Nathan, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.
David V. Levy, Levy & Zeewy, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Michael Glenn Moss's Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (the "Motion") [Doc. 14].1 For reasons stated below, the Court denies the Motion as to the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) claims and grants the Motion as to the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) claim.
On June 13, 2018, Defendant Michael Glenn Moss ("Dr. Moss") and his wife (collectively, the "Debtors") filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7, thereby commencing case number 18-41373 (the "Bankruptcy Case") in this Court. The last day for creditors to object to the dischargeability of their debt in the Bankruptcy Case was September 17, 2018, on which day Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed its Original Complaint to Determine the Dischargeability of a Debt Under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (the "Original Complaint") [Doc. 1] objecting to the dischargeability of its alleged debt. This is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).
Prior to filing its Original Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a proof of claim for $ 107,429.99 (the "POC"). [Doc. 13 at 7 ¶ 43].
Dr. Moss asserts in the Motion that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to Determine the Dischargeability of a Debt Under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (the "Amended Complaint") [Doc. 13] fails to cure deficiencies in the Original Complaint and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dr. Moss seeks dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Rule") 7012.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to have its alleged debt declared nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B) and (a)(6). Plaintiff also seeks to recover its attorney's fees and costs in pursuing this adversary proceeding.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Lubin v. Markowitz (In re Markowitz) , No. 14-68061-BEM, 2017 WL 1088273, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2017) (Ellis-Monro, J.) (quoting Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010) ). Legal conclusions, however, need not be accepted as true. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 () (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
In addition to the Twombly / Iqbal pleading standards that apply to all complaints, complaints that allege fraud are subject to a heightened pleading standard. Bankruptcy Rule 7009 and Rule 9(b) require the plaintiff to "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." In re Eden , 584 B.R. 795, 803 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2018) (Diehl, J.) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7009 ). The intent element of fraud may be alleged generally. Id. Nondischargeability claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) are subject to the heightened pleading standard enumerated in Bankruptcy Rule 7009 and Rule 9(b). Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1752, 1758-59, 201 L.Ed.2d 102 (2018).
Because the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true at this stage, the Court reproduces the facts from the Amended Complaint below, omitting legal conclusions and general statements of the law.
Dr. Moss is an employed physician at 24 On Physicians, P.C. [Doc. 13 at 2 ¶ 6]. He also operates a sole proprietorship d/b/a Michael Moss, M.D. ("Borrower"). Dr. Moss is also a member and the registered agent for Southern Chic Medical Aesthetics, LLC ("SCMA"). [Doc. 13 at 2 ¶ 7]. SCMA was in operation from June 2017 to May 2018. [Id. at 3 ¶ 10]. On or about November 11, 2017, Plaintiff and Borrower entered into a Financing Agreement (Sole Proprietorship) Promissory Note/Security Agreement/Personal Guaranty (the "Loan Documents") whereby Plaintiff agreed to make a loan (the "Loan") of $ 112,245.00 (the "Loan Proceeds") to Borrower in exchange for Borrower's agreement to repay Plaintiff principal and interest payments over 84 months. The Loan was secured by a blanket lien on all of Borrower's assets. [Id. at 3 ¶ 13]. As further consideration for the Loan, Dr. Moss executed an absolute and unconditional personal guaranty of his obligations under the Loan Documents. [Id. at 3 ¶ 14]. Dr. Moss submitted the written loan application documents (collectively, the "Loan Application") to Plaintiff in an effort to obtain the Loan. [Id. at 3 ¶ 15]. In connection with the Loan Application, Dr. Moss made the following written representations to Plaintiff:
[Doc. 13 at 3-4 ¶ 15]. Additionally, in applying for the Loan, Dr. Moss executed a Statement of Intended Primary Purpose of the Loan dated November 3, 2017 (the "Statement of Intended Purpose") stating that: (i) the Loan was a "commercial loan," (ii) the Loan Proceeds were to be used "primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes," and (iii) the specific business reason for the Loan and intended use of the Loan Proceeds was "business development." [Id. at 4 ¶ 16].
The last payment on the Loan was made May 15, 2018, and the Loan is currently in default and due for the June 2018 payment and thereafter. [Id. at 4 ¶¶ 16, 18]. On February 28, 2018, Dr. Moss personally guaranteed an SBA loan to SCMA (the "SBA Loan"). [Id. at 6 ¶ 32]. Regarding the SBA Loan, the following facts are alleged:
Plaintiff has alleged nondischargeability of the Loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which provides that a debt "for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit" that was obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud" in a statement that does not concern the debtor or an insider's financial condition is nondischargeable. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) ; see also Appling v. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP (In re Appling) , 848 F.3d 953, 957 (11th Cir. 2017), aff'd sub nom Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1752, 201 L.Ed.2d 102 (2018) ( ). To prevail on a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim, the creditor must show justifiable reliance on the debtor's false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud. Field v. Mans , 516 U.S. 59, 74, 116 S.Ct. 437, 446, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) ; accord In re Appling , 848 F.3d at 957 ()
Plaintiff bases its § 523(a)(2)(A) claim on the Statement of Intended Purpose Dr. Moss signed as part of the Loan Application. The Statement of Intended Purpose reads, in its entirety:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Groom v. Krook (In re Krook)
...*4 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2019) (finding embezzlement claim fell under both sections 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) ); Bankers Healthcare Grp. v. Moss (In re Moss) , 598 B.R. 508, 517 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2019) (stating that section 523(a)(6) claims "need not be distinct" from section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) claims......
-
Cinq Music Grp. v. Kabara (In re Kabara)
...he personally invested his funds towards sustaining the venture, and that, at some point, he offered Cinq four recordings from each artist. [Id.] Davis v. Arellano (In re Arellano), 574 B.R. 251, 259 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2017) (finding defendant did not act willfully because in paying for persona......
-
Young v. Wells-Lucas (In re Wells-Lucas)
...statements of opinion that "do not relate to existing fact and are not actionable.'" Bankers Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Moss (In re Moss), 598 B.R. 508, 515 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2019) (Ellis-Monro, J.) (citing Kuper v. Spar (In re Spar), 176 B.R. 321, 327 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)). The allegations a......
-
White v. White (In re White), Case No. 20-12251-SAH
...should have done. 4. The intent element of fraud claims may, however, be alleged generally. Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Moss (In re Moss), 598 B.R. 508, 512 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2019) (citing In re Eden, 584 B.R. 795, 803 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2018)). Because plaintiffs rarely know the inner wo......