Hiner v. Koukhtiev (In re Koukhtiev)
Citation | 576 B.R. 107 |
Decision Date | 17 November 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 15–34425,Adversary No. 15–3338 |
Parties | IN RE: Valeriy KOUKHTIEV, Debtor. Hellene Hiner, Plaintiff v. Valeriy Koukhtiev, Defendant. |
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas |
Christian M. Sternat, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, James H. Stokes, Jr., Attorney at Law, Sugar Land, TX, for Plaintiff.
Reese W. Baker, Baker & Associates LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant.
Hellene Hiner (the "Plaintiff") initiated the instant adversary proceeding against Valeriy Koukhtiev, the debtor in the main case (the "Debtor"), and requested this Court to declare that: (1) a certain judgment that she obtained against the Debtor in state court is a non-dischargeable obligation under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and/or (a)(6) ;1 and (2) certain actions taken by the Debtor after the state court entered its judgment have caused injury to the Plaintiff and that the amount of these damages is also a non-dischargeable obligation.
On February 16, 21, 22, and 23, 2017, this Court held a trial during which time the Plaintiff put on her case-in-chief. She called several witnesses and introduced numerous exhibits. She then rested. The Court then continued the trial to March 24, 2017 to afford the Debtor the opportunity to put on his case-in-chief.
On March 24, 2017, prior to beginning his case-in-chief, the Debtor, through his attorney of record, made an oral motion for directed judgment under Federal Rule 52(c).2 On the same day, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Debtor's oral motion. [Adv. Doc. No. 52]. This order set forth that the motion was granted in part insofar as the Plaintiff, in her case-in-chief, had failed to meet her burden to prove that she has suffered damages arising out of any actions that the Debtor may have taken following the entry of the state court judgment. [See Pl's Ex. No. 1]. This order also set forth that the oral motion was denied in part insofar as the Debtor requested this Court to enter an order that the state court judgment is a dischargeable obligation. Finally, the order set forth that the trial would resume so that the Defendant could put on his case-in-chief.
On October 3, 2017, the trial resumed, and the Defendant put on his case-in-chief. After the Defendant adduced testimony and introduced exhibits, he rested. The Plaintiff chose to call no rebuttal witnesses. The Court then heard closing arguments, with the Plaintiff arguing that she had met her burden proving that the state court judgment is non-dischargeable under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and/or (a)(6) and the Debtor arguing to the contrary. The Court then afforded the parties an opportunity to submit any authorities in support of their respective positions, and thereafter they each filed post-trial briefs. [Adv. Doc. Nos. 72 & 73].
The Court now issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7052. To the extent that any Finding of Fact is construed to be a Conclusion of Law, it is adopted as such; and to the extent that any Conclusion of Law is construed to be a Finding of Fact, it is adopted as such. The Court reserves the right to make additional Findings and Conclusions as it deems appropriate or as any party may request.
The relevant facts—as established by the pleadings and the evidence—are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mid-S. Maint., Inc. v. Burk (In re Burk)
...not excepted from discharge under the false pretenses and representations prong of § 523(a)(2)(A). See Hiner v. Koukhtiev (In re Koukhtiev) , 576 B.R. 107, 129 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017) ("Plaintiff has failed to satisfy all three elements required to demonstrate that the Judgment resulted fro......
-
NF Clean v. Kakal (In re Kakal)
...Bankruptcy Code does not independently provide attorney's fees to a party seeking an exception to discharge. See In re Koukhtiev , 576 B.R. 107, 135 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017) (indicating that 11 U.S.C. § 523 does not independently provide for attorney's fees as a relief to the prevailing part......
-
Law Offices of Robert Pagniello, P.C. v. Bryan (In re Bryan)
...Code does not provide an independent basis for awarding fees to a prevailing creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 523. See In re Koukhtiev, 576 B.R. 107, 135 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017). Further, although there is authority for awarding fees in limited instances as allowed by another statute or by contra......
-
Mid-South Maint., Inc. v. Jones (In re Jones)
...requires that the debtor have made a false representation or that his words or actions constituted false pretenses. In re Koukhtiev, 576 B.R. 107, 129 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017) ("Plaintiff has failed to satisfy all three elements required to demonstrate that the Judgment resulted from the Deb......