In re Henney
| Decision Date | 25 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:07–cv–14.,1:07–cv–14. |
| Citation | 451 B.R. 724 |
| Parties | In re Matthew J. HENNEY, Debtor.Matthew Henney, Defendant–Appellant,v.Timothy Rumfield, Plaintiff–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Andrew J. Gerdes, Andrew J. Gerdes PLC, East Lansing, MI, for Debtor and Defendant–Appellant.Peter A. Teholiz, Hubbard Fox Thomas White & Bengtson PC, Lansing, MI, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Vacating U.S. Bankruptcy Court's December 11, 2006 Ruling on § 523(a)(9) Nondischargeability; Vacating the Grant of Summary Judgment to Plaintiff/Judgment–Creditor Rumfield; Vacating the Denial of Summary Judgment for Defendant/Judgment–Debtor Henney
Remanding for Determination of Whether Henney was Intoxicated at Time of Accident as Defined by Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.625(1) (2001)
Kelly Fuels's convenience store sold beer to defendant/debtor Matthew Henney (“Henney”) on June 15, 2001, and some hours later his truck rear-ended a truck in which plaintiff/creditor Timothy Rumfield's two sons, Jeffrey Rumfield and Daniel Rumfield, were riding, killing one and permanently injuring the other. Rumfield secured a jury verdict against Henney in the first state-court trial, and secured a jury verdict against Kelly Fuels, whose convenience store sold beer to Henney some hours before the accident, in a second state-court trial to which Henney was not a party. As discussed in greater detail below, the jury found in each case that Henney was partially at fault and the Rumfields were partially at fault for the accident. Henney petitioned for bankruptcy protection, and the Rumfields contended that his judgment debt to them is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9), which requires a showing that the debt resulted from death or injury caused by the debtor's operation of a motor vehicle which was illegal “because the debtor was intoxicated” from alcohol and/or illegal-drug use. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Rumfields on that issue, and Henney appealed to this court.
For the reasons that follow, the court will vacate the bankruptcy court's order because the grounds on which it relied are invalid. First, the court holds that the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the jury verdict of dram-shop liability in Rumfield v. Kelly Fuels—where Henney was not a party—established with preclusive effect that Henney was intoxicated. Second, the court holds that the bankruptcy erred in determining that Henney's violation of a Michigan statute prohibiting people under 21 years old from operating a motor vehicle if they have any bodily alcohol content, necessarily established that Henney was intoxicated. However, it would be improper for this court, sitting as an appellate court, to decide whether Henney was intoxicated for this purpose. The case will be remanded to the bankruptcy court for a determination of whether Henney was intoxicated, whether on summary judgment or otherwise.
On the evening of June 15, 2001, nineteen-year-old Matthew Henney (“Henney”) took his girlfriend out to dinner; on the way back, he stopped and purchased 18 cans of cold Miller Lite beer from a convenience store operated by Kelly Fuels, Inc., doing business as Woodland Express Mart (“Kelly Fuels”). See Rumfield v. Henney & Kelly Fuels, Inc., No. 260540, 2006 WL 2739331, *1, 2006 Mich.App. Lexis 2805 (Mich.App. Sept. 26, 2006, amended Oct. 4, 2006) (per curiam) (J. Sawyer for the Court, with J. Schuette concurring at *9 and P.J. Davis dissenting at *9–14); see also Trial Transcript Volume V, available as Record on Appeal (“ROA”) 16 Exhibit (“Ex”) A (“Tr 5”)—Testimony of Rebecca Geldersma; Tr 2 (ROA16 Ex E) Testimony of Matthew Henney at 123–126. The store clerk testified that Henney showed her identification which indicated that he was over 21 years old, the legal minimum to buy alcohol in the State of Michigan. Henney testified that he “drank a few beers” after that but was not intoxicated. Rumfield, 2006 WL 2739331 at *1.
Sometime shortly after 11:00 p.m., 17–year–old Daniel Rumfield and 23–year–old Jeffrey Rumfield arrived at a party hosted by their friend Jeremy Liptak, who testified that he saw Jeffrey drink two to three beers but did not see Daniel drinking any. See Tr 7 at 45–Testimony of Jeremy Liptak. The two Rumfield boys left the party at about 1:00 a.m., by then June 16, 2001, and went to a party at Alan Brodbeck's pond. See Tr 7 at 45–Liptak Testimony and Tr 8 at 85 & 91 (ROA 16 Ex C)—Testimony of Christopher Alderink. Present when the two Rumfield boys arrived were Christopher Alderink and Matt Henney. Alderink could tell that Daniel Rumfield had consumed alcohol, and he did not see Henney drink any alcohol, but he left shortly after the Rumfields arrived, see Tr 8 at 89 & 91 (ROA 16 Ex C)—Alderink at 93–95. The pond's owner, Alan Brodbeck, went to sleep in the cabin near the pond and did not see the Rumfields that night, see Tr 7 (ROA 16 Ex D)—Testimony of Alan Brodbeck at 265.
Henney claimed that he did not drink anything before going to Brodbeck's pond, and that he drank only two beers that evening beginning around 11:45 p.m., see Tr 2 (ROA 16 Ex E–Henney) at 117 and 188–191. With Brodbeck asleep and Alderink leaving shortly after the Rumfields arrived, only Henney and the two Rumfield boys remained at the pond. Because Jeff Rumfield did not testify due to his brain injuries and loss of memory of the accident and the events preceding it (Tr 6 at 58), and because Daniel Rumfield died in the accident, only Henney provided trial testimony regarding events after Alderink's departure, see Henney's Opening Brief on Appeal filed March 5, 2007 (Doc 19) (“Henney Br”) at 2. Henney testified that Jeff and Daniel Rumfield each had up to three beers at the pond, Tr 2 ROA 16 Ex E at 162.
Henney and the Rumfields decided to leave the pond at about 3:30 a.m., see Tr 2 (ROA Ex E–Henney Direct) at 165. Jeff Rumfield told Henney that he was going to take his brother to get his brother Daniel's truck, which he had left at the Liptak party, and the Rumfield brothers drove away in Jeff's pick-up truck, see Tr 2 (ROA Ex E–Henney Direct) at 163–164. Henney followed in his pick-up truck, and both trucks headed onto Michigan Route 43 (“M–43”) East, see id. at 169. Henney expected the Rumfields to angle to the south on Michigan Route 50 (“M–50”) to return to Liptak's house to get Daniel's truck as stated, and he continued on M–43 East towards his home, see Tr 7 (ROA 16 Ex F–Henney Rebuttal) at 332.
* * * [Henney] left the scene of the accident and went to a friend's house nearby, where he stayed for a few hours. By the time Henney was taken to the hospital and his blood-alcohol level tested, no alcohol was detected in his system. Plaintiff did offer the opinion of an expert toxicologist who opined that, based upon the consumption of five or six beers over the time frame indicated, Henney's blood-alcohol level would have been in the range of 0.047 g/dl [grams per deciliter] at the time of the accident.
While [Rumfield] attributes the accident to Henney's intoxication, Henney attributes it to the Rumfield vehicle being driven without its light on and, due to foggy conditions, Henney was unable to see the vehicle in time to stop.
Rumfield, 2006 WL 2739331 at *1; see also Tr 4 (ROA 16 Ex M–Testimony of Plaintiff Rumfield's Expert Toxicologist Daniel J. Brown) at 134(BAC). The driver of the vehicle which Henney rear-ended, Jeffrey Rumfield, had a blood alcohol content of 0.07 at the time of the accident, see ROA 16 Ex N–Laboratory Test Results for Jeffrey Rumfield.
A police officer estimated that the Rumfields were traveling at 58 mph at the moment of impact, while defendant Henney's expert estimated the Rumfields' speed at only 40 mph, substantially below the speed limit, see Tr 3 (ROA 16 Ex G–Testimony of Sergeant Rodney Sadler) at 59 and Tr 8 (ROA 16 Ex H–Defense Accident Reconstruction Expert David J. Shepardson) at 154. Henney states that both sides' experts agree that his truck was traveling 30 mph faster than the Rumfields' truck ahead of him, see Henney Br (citing ROA 16 Ex G–Sgt. Sadler at 60 and ROA 16 Ex H–Defense Expert Shepardson at 154).
Direct and Circumstantial Evidence that the Rumfield Truck May Have Had Its Lights Off. Henney claimed that the reason he collided with the Rumfield truck is that the Rumfields had turned their lights off, see Tr 7 (ROA 16 Ex F–Henney Rebuttal) at 336–337. In support of this claim, he emphasized that the Michigan State Police Crime Laboratory tested the Rumfield truck's lights to see whether their tungsten filaments broke in a hot, ductile “stretched out” manner (consistent with being illuminated) or in a cold, brittle manner (consistent with not being illuminated) and found that six of the lights were off, and none were on, at the time of impact. See Tr 8 (ROA 16 Ex L—Testimony of Michigan State Police Crime Lab expert Christopher Bommarito) at 17 and 41. Henney also proffers the testimony of Rumfield's father that his son was a skilled mechanic who was very proud of his truck and meticulously maintained it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mitchell
...the meaning of some terms that are not defined under federal law, such as "intoxication" and "motor vehicle". See In re Henney, 451 B.R. 724, 737-38 (D. W.D. Mich. 2011) ("a federal court applying section 523(a)(9) should adopt the definition of 'intoxication' or 'intoxicated' which is supp......