In re Woolley
| Decision Date | 29 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 90-32439-T,Adv. No. 90-3189-T. |
| Citation | 145 BR 830 |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | In re George A.C. WOOLLEY, III, Debtor. Thomas L. VISOTSKY, Plaintiff, v. George A.C. WOOLLEY, III, Defendant. |
Charles L. Williams, Christopher M. Malone, Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.
James F. Pascal, Richmond, Va., for debtor, defendant.
The plaintiff, Thomas L. Visotsky, initiated this adversary proceeding on September 30, 1990, pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. His complaint seeks exception from discharge of a state court judgment against the debtor, George A.C. Woolley, III, involving the sale of a security based on an untrue statement.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7056. At the conclusion of a hearing on this motion held January 16, 1991, this court awarded partial summary judgment for plaintiff finding that: (1) debtor made a false representation; (2) plaintiff relied on the representation; and (3) plaintiff was damaged as a result of the representation.
On January 22, 1991, trial was held on two remaining issues: (1) whether debtor knew that the representation was false when made and (2) whether debtor made the representation with the intent to deceive the plaintiff.
Based upon the facts and conclusions stated in this opinion the court holds that plaintiff's judgment against the debtor is excepted from discharge.
In July 1986, Woolley began employment with L & A Petroleum, Inc., an oil and gas development firm based in Richmond. Previously, Woolley held financial management positions with two major Richmond corporations and taught at a local university from which he received a master's degree in business administration.
L & A Petroleum was controlled by Lance A. Lastinger, President. In addition to Lastinger there were three other full time employees in the headquarters office, including Woolley. Woolley, whose title was Vice President, was responsible for the marketing of drilling programs to the investment public.
Woolley contacted Visotsky in early September 1986 to solicit an investment in a joint venture for drilling an oil and natural gas well known as Holligan 2. The prospectus for this joint venture, dated February 21, 1986, described the project as a $1,200,000.00 drilling program on property located in Brazos County, Texas. Initial drilling had begun in July 1986.
Woolley mailed a Holligan 2 prospectus to Visotsky on September 3, 1986. The prospectus included data on L & A Petroleum's recently-marketed Holligan 1 drilling program on a property adjacent to the site for Holligan 2. (The marketing of Holligan 1 had been concluded before Woolley joined L & A Petroleum.) In the margin of the prospectus, Woolley wrote the following statement concerning Holligan 1: "This well is currently doing about 900 BBL barrels/day."
During the solicitation period Woolley on two or three occasions made similar oral representations to Visotsky concerning the 900 barrel per day production of Holligan 1.
In his statements to Visotsky concerning the 900 barrel per day production of Holligan 1, Woolley primarily relied on oral representations to this effect made to him by Lastinger. It was Lastinger's practice to hold weekly meetings with the other three Richmond employees at which time he would give them production information. That information was then typically sent to investors in form letters prepared by Lastinger but often signed by the individual L & A Petroleum sales representatives.
According to an administrative assistant for L & A Petroleum, Lastinger regularly received, often on a weekly basis, accurate written production reports from the well sites in Texas. These reports were usually placed in the company files. In fact, and as revealed by these production reports, the production of oil by Holligan 1 was considerably less than the 900 barrels a day represented by Woolley to Visotsky. Woolley testified that he did not become aware of the existence of these documents until after Lastinger left the company in June 1987.
On his typed cover letter to Visotsky accompanying the prospectus, Woolley wrote in the margin: "This is as far from wildcatting as you can get." During the sales negotiations, Woolley also offered to provide Visotsky a guarantee from L & A Petroleum of his proposed investment in Holligan 2.
Woolley also sent to Visotsky a packet of L & A Petroleum investor update letters relative to Holligan 1, including a letter dated September 17, 1986. This letter stated that "frac water" was being recovered from Holligan 1, and "we are allowing the well to produce at about 100 barrels of fluid per day." The evidence is inconclusive as to whether Visotsky received this letter before or after he invested in Holligan 2.
Visotsky invested $30,000.00 in Holligan 2 on September 30, 1986. Although drilling of the site was completed in October 1986, the well was plagued with difficulties and never produced sufficient oil to become commercially viable. Visotsky continued to receive investor updates concerning Holligan 2, including a letter from Woolley dated May 20, 1987, stating "total return on this investment will be excellent".
In December 1987, Visotsky received a check for $28.56 representing his share of Holligan 2 production revenue. He received no additional payments on his investment.
In the spring of 1987 Woolley learned from Lastinger that there were "some problems" with both Holligan 1 and 2. However, Woolley did not inform Visotsky of the problems with either Holligan 1 or 2.
In late May or early June 1987, Lastinger left the company and the three remaining Richmond employees attempted to reorganize and seek new investors to complete development of Holligan 2. This effort was not successful, and the company ceased operations in late 1987.
Visotsky filed a civil complaint against Woolley in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond in February 1989, alleging violation of Va.Code Ann. § 13.1-522(C) (Repl.Vol.1989), a securities broker liability statute. Following trial under this complaint, the circuit court ruled that Woolley sold a security to Visotsky by means of an untrue statement of a material fact. As part of the ruling, the circuit court found that Woolley failed to sustain the burden of proof imposed on him by § 13.1-522(C) that he did not know and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known of the existence of the untrue statement. Visotsky v. Woolley, Case No. N-6145-4, Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (1990). Accordingly, the circuit court entered judgment against Woolley on June 19, 1990, for the value of the investment, $30,000.00, less the return of $28.56. The court also awarded Visotsky attorneys' fees and interest of 6% per annum interest on the unpaid judgment.
On August 7, 1990, Woolley filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.
Plaintiff bases his dischargeability complaint on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code which provides in part:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (1991). The false representation or fraud relied upon by the plaintiff is Woolley's statement on several occasions that the adjoining well, Holligan 1, was producing 900 barrels of oil per day when in fact it was producing substantially less.
Plaintiff must prove the following five elements to establish non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A): (1) the debtor made false representations; (2) that at the time he knew the representations were false; (3) that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) that the creditor relied on such representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made. Sweet v. Ritter Finance Co., 263 F.Supp. 540, 543 (W.D.Va. 1967), cited in Ward v. Wyatt (In re Wyatt), 87 B.R. 874, 877 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1988).
In determinations of dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), collateral estoppel may bar relitigation of issues resolved in state court. Krenowsky v. Haining (In re Haining), 119 B.R. 460, 464 (Bankr.D.Del. 1990). As stated above, this court granted summary judgment for plaintiff for the 1st, 4th and 5th elements based on the state court proceeding.
However, Va.Code Ann. § 13.1-522(C) (Repl.Vol.1989) under which the state court judgment lies, does not require a finding of intent to deceive.1 Therefore, neither intent nor knowledge was established at the state court proceeding, and summary judgment was not available as to the 2nd and 3rd elements.
From an evidentiary perspective, a state court record is relevant and admissable in a § 523(a)(2)(A) dischargeability proceeding where the testimonial and documentary evidence concerns the same parties, transactions, and occurrences. In re Haining at 462. Therefore, the state court record in the earlier Visotsky v. Woolley litigation is admissible in this bankruptcy proceeding and may be considered by the court in ruling on the complaint.
The appropriate standard of proof for plaintiff in an exception to discharge case is the preponderance of the evidence standard. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991).
Here, the defendant Woolley testified that at the time he made the representations concerning production of the adjoining well, he believed the statements to be true and that he did not learn the truth until much later. His defense is that he relied on Lastinger's representations. Consequently, he argues that he did not have the requisite knowledge or intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial