In re Tranter, Bankruptcy No. 99-30172-BKC-SHF. Adversary No. 99-3098-BKC-SHF-A.

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
• Writing for the Court: STEVEN H. FRIEDMAN
• Citation: 245 BR 419
• Parties: In re Marie TRANTER, Debtor. Policemen's and Firefighters' Retirement Fund of the City of Covington, Kentucky, Plaintiff, v. Marie Tranter, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 15 February 2000
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 99-30172-BKC-SHF. Adversary No. 99-3098-BKC-SHF-A.

245 B.R. 419 (2000)

In re Marie TRANTER, Debtor.
Policemen's and Firefighters' Retirement Fund of the City of Covington, Kentucky, Plaintiff,
v.
Marie Tranter, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 99-30172-BKC-SHF. Adversary No. 99-3098-BKC-SHF-A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.

February 15, 2000.

Norman L. Schroeder, II, P.A., Lake Worth, FL, for Plaintiff.

Marie Tranter, pro se.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STEVEN H. FRIEDMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS MATTER came on to be heard on November 2, 1999, upon the Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff seeks to except from discharge, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) (1998), a debt arising from a final judgment entered in the Circuit Court in and for Kenton County, Kentucky (the "Kentucky court"), on December

245 BR 420

7, 1983. The Plaintiff domesticated this foreign judgment on February 4, 1997, by recording the judgment in Highlands County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Statutes § 55.501, et seq., known as the "Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act." The judgment established Defendant's liability to Plaintiff for embezzlement, and the Plaintiff argues in the instant motion that the Kentucky court's ruling is binding upon this Court under principles of res judicata. On November 10, 1988, the Defendant filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. In that case, the Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding similar to the instant proceeding, and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky entered an agreed judgment on May 17, 1989, determining the Kentucky court judgment to be nondischargeable. In the instant motion, the Plaintiff argues in the alternative that under the terms of Section 523(a)(4), a determination of dischargeability is binding in a subsequent proceeding under Chapter 7. In her Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the Defendant argues that the judgment is not collectible because the applicable fifteen-year statute of limitations, Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 413.090, has run. Having considered the arguments and the relevant case law, the Court finds that the determination of nondischargeability entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is binding in the instant proceeding. Notwithstanding, the Court finds that the judgment is uncollectible

Regarding the binding effect of a prior determination of nondischargeability, the Court is persuaded by Judge Wilson's opinion in Royal American Oil and Gas Co. v. Szafranski, 147 B.R. 976 (Bankr. N.D.Okla.1992). In Szafranski, the court noted that 11 U.S.C. § 523(b) provides that a debt excepted from discharge under subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), or (a)(8) in a prior bankruptcy case is dischargeable in a subsequent case unless nondischargeability is reestablished. See id. at 981. The court sought to determine whether Section 523(b) provided by negative implication that debts excepted from discharge in a prior bankruptcy under subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(9) are nondischargeable as a matter of law in subsequent bankruptcies. See id. at 982. The court found that Section 523 is ambiguous in that it "suggests and supports, but does not clearly compel,...