In re Stowell
Citation | 113 BR 322 |
Decision Date | 20 April 1990 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 88-11334,Adv. No. 88-1126. |
Parties | In re Albert J. STOWELL and Sarah K. Stowell, Debtors. Benito CARDENAS and Maria De Jesus Maldonado, Plaintiffs, v. Albert J. STOWELL and Sarah K. Stowell, Defendants. |
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Texas |
Harvey D. Caughey, Austin, Tex., for debtors.
Dale Ossip Johnson, Bearden & Johnson, Austin, Tex., for plaintiffs.
FIRST AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 6, 1989 this court entered an order granting a Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Benito Cardenas and Maria De Jesus Maldonado (collectively "Plaintiff"). The Debtor-Defendant, Albert J. Stowell, timely filed a Motion For New Trial and/or For Additional Findings of Facts. Plaintiff also filed a timely Motion For Additional Findings of Facts. On October 30, 1989, this Court held an oral hearing on the Motions, and tentatively indicated that the Motions For New Trial and For Additional Findings of Facts would all be denied. However, after a thorough review of the file and the law, this court now has determined to grant Stowell's Motion For New Trial, modify its earlier memorandum opinion and to vacate its earlier Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment.1
The factual basis for the Plaintiff's claims against Stowell is a Judgment Nihil Dicit which was signed and entered on December 17, 1987 in cause No. 388,917 styled Benito Cardenas and Maria De Jesus Maldonado, Plaintiffs versus Albert J. Stowell, Defendant in the 201st Judicial Court of Travis County, Texas. The state court judgment is a final judgment and is founded upon findings that money was obtained from Plaintiff by the Defendant Stowell by "false pretenses, false representations and/or actual fraud as well as by means of willful and malicious injury to the property of the Plaintiffs." In pertinent part, the state court judgment found that:
Stowell filed this Chapter 7 proceeding on May 5, 1988 and Plaintiffs timely commenced this Adversary Proceeding to obtain a non-dischargeable judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (6). Plaintiffs rely on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, request that this court find that the substantive issues have been previously determined in the underlying state court action, and preclude Defendant Stowell from presenting any additional evidence on the issues relevant to the determination of dischargeability.
1. Whether a state court judgment has res judicata (i.e., claim preclusive) effect in a dischargeability action in federal bankruptcy court.
2. Whether a state court judgment has collateral estoppel (i.e., issue preclusion) effect in a dischargeability action in federal bankruptcy court and, if so, whether the federal or state test for collateral estoppel should be applied.
3. Whether the elements of the appropriate test are met in this case.
4. Whether the Motion For Summary Judgment should be granted.
1.01 Bankruptcy courts are increasingly confronted with the res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, if any, of state court judgments in subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. One commentator has succinctly defined these two concepts:
Ferriell, The Preclusive Effect of State Court Decisions in Bankruptcy, 58 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 349, 350 (1985).
1.02 Restatement (Second) of Judgments (1982) deals with the preclusive effects of judgments in civil actions. Its introductory chapter states:
Restatement (Second) Judgments (1982), Chapter 1, pg. 1. (hereafter "Restatement").
1.03. Two important U.S. Supreme Court cases also contrast these two concepts:
See Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 896, 79 L.Ed.2d 56, 63 (1984); see also Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985).
1.04. Plaintiffs have argued in part that this Court is bound by the principles of res judicata to find that Stowell's actions determined in the state court judgment to be actual fraud, result in a non-dischargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (6). This argument is easily disposed of. Res judicata applies only when an attempt is made to twice litigate the same claim. Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 973, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). The claim litigated in the state court was based on common law fraud principles and on the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The claim being litigated in this Adversary Proceeding arises under federal law and will determine the question of whether the judgment debt can be discharged. These are patently not the same claim. The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that res judicata does not apply where a pre-petition state court judgment is urged to prove a dischargeability suit before a bankruptcy court:
. . . We reject respondent\'s contention that res judicata applies here and we hold that the bankruptcy court is not confined to a review of the judgment and record in the prior state court proceedings when considering the dischargeability of respondent\'s debt.
Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 140, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). This point in Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment is denied.
2.01. In Brown, the Supreme Court distinguished the Application of Collateral Estoppel while expressly leaving open the question of whether or not collateral estoppel would apply in bankruptcy dischargeability litigation.
Brown, 442 U.S. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2213 n. 10.
2.02. Several Circuit opinions have addressed the issue of collateral estoppel in bankruptcy dischargeability litigation. The Ninth Circuit held that, in appropriate circumstances, a prior judgment may be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, but it will never be granted issue preclusive effect. In re Rahm, 641 F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 860, 102 S.Ct. 313, 70 L.Ed.2d 157 (1981). Other circuits have found that issue preclusion may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial