Martin v. Melendez (In re Melendez), Bankruptcy No. 16-17905-AMC
| Decision Date | 27 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Adv. Proc. No. 17-00068-AMC,Bankruptcy No. 16-17905-AMC |
| Citation | 589 B.R. 260 |
| Parties | IN RE Heriberto MELENDEZ, Debtor David Martin & Ruth Martin, Plaintiffs v. Heriberto Melendez, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
David and Ruth Martin, Phoenixville, PA, pro se.
Robert J. Lohr, II, Lohr and Associates, Ltd., West Chester, PA, for Defendant.
In October 2016, the plaintiffs, David and Ruth Martin ("Plaintiffs"), obtained a prepetition judgment ("Judgment") in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas ("CCP") against the debtor, Heriberto Melendez ("Debtor"). Memo in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Mot.") Ex. 1 at 6-7. In connection with the Judgment, the CCP determined that the Debtor had breached a contract by knowingly supplying the Plaintiffs with a false seller's disclosure statement ("Disclosure Statement") to induce them into purchasing his real property located at 270 Morris Street, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania ("Property"). Id. at 4.
In this adversary proceeding, the Plaintiffs seek to have the Judgment declared nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Mot. at 6. On summary judgment, the Plaintiffs established all but one element necessary to sustain a § 523(a)(2)(A) nondischargeability claim. Trial proceeded on the sole remaining issue of whether the Debtor made the representations in the Disclosure Statement with the intent and purpose of deceiving the Plaintiffs.1
The Court finds that credible, circumstantial evidence supports the Plaintiffs' position that the Debtor intended to deceive the Plaintiffs by making false representations about the Property's condition in the Disclosure Statement. Furthermore, even if the Debtor had established that he did not read the Disclosure Statement before signing it, his reckless indifference to its truth establishes intent to deceive sufficient to support a finding that the Judgment is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).
On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale for the Property with the Debtor and his partner, Daniel Pearson ("Pearson"). Mot. Ex. 1 at 2. The Debtor and Pearson had decided to sell the Property because it had become a "money pit" which they could no longer afford to maintain after Pearson lost his job and they exhausted all their savings. Trial June 28, 2018 (hereinafter "BK Trial") Ex. D-1 p. 20 lines 14-21; p. 52 lines 7-14. On the same day that the Plaintiffs executed the agreement of sale, the Debtor and Pearson signed and delivered the Disclosure Statement to the Plaintiffs. Mot. at p. 15, ¶ 5. The Disclosure Statement represented, in pertinent part, that: the basement only experienced slight water damage during heavy rains, the Property had no stucco, the floor had no defects, the Debtor and Pearson were unaware of past sewer problems, they had made no alterations to the Property, and the Property had no problems with the electrical system. Id. Ex. 1 at 2-4.
In April 2013, following a home inspection, the Plaintiffs purchased the Property. Id. at p. 1, ¶ 1. After the purchase, the Plaintiffs discovered serious defects to the Property which were not disclosed in the Disclosure Statement. Id.; Ex. 1 at 2-4; Trial Tr. June 28, 2018 (hereinafter "BK Trial Tr.") p. 20 lines 17-25-p. 21 lines 1-9. Had the defects been disclosed, the Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property. Trial Tr. Sept. 26, 2016 (hereinafter "State Trial Tr.") p. 151 line 23; p. 152 lines 1-4; 12-16; p. 153 lines 5-10. The Plaintiffs had not discovered some of the defects during the home inspection because certain materials and items had hidden them. For instance, concrete had concealed damage to the sewer pipe, while cars in the garage had prevented the Plaintiffs from discovering that the ladder leading to the water-damaged attic was broken. BK Trial Tr. p. 13 line 12; p. 19 lines 15-25; p. 22 lines 19-23; p. 37 lines 12-25.
In July 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the CCP against the Debtor, Pearson, and other parties not involved in this adversary proceeding.2 Mot. at ¶ 2. Initially, a default judgment was entered against the Debtor on December 7, 2015. Id. at ¶ 3. On January 15, 2016, the Debtor's deposition was taken. See BK Trial Ex. D-2. In response to questioning about whether he had read the Disclosure Statement, he responded that Id. p. 8 line 19-20; BK Trial Tr. p. 32 lines 2-5. Subsequently, the Debtor filed a petition to open and strike the default judgment, which the CCP granted on March 11, 2016. Mot. at p. 2, ¶ 5, Ex. 4.
A trial was held on September 26, 2016. Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. 5. On October 3, 2016, the CCP entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Debtor and Pearson in the amount of $63,964.00 for damages sustained, holding that the Plaintiffs had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor and Pearson had "breached the contract [with the Plaintiffs] by supplying a false seller's disclosure statement to induce the Plaintiffs to purchase the property." Mot. Ex. 1 at 4, 6. In connection with this holding, the CCP made numerous findings, including that the Debtor had knowingly made false representations in the Disclosure Statement which proximately caused damage to the Plaintiffs. Id. at 3; Summ. J. Order at ¶ 10.
The CCP also found that, contrary to representations in the Disclosure Statement that the basement experienced only minor leaking during heavy rains, the basement actually showed signs of substantial, recurring water damage. Mot. Ex. 1 at 2-3. The CCP further found that the Property contained buckling, sagging floors, improperly installed bathroom floors, and crumbling stucco hidden under aluminum siding. Id. at 3. Even more disturbing, the CCP concluded that the Debtor knew about past sewer problems3 and significant, dangerous problems with the electrical system4 despite representations in the Disclosure Statement that he was not aware of any of these problems. Id. at 3-4. Finally, despite representing that they had made no alterations to the Property, the Debtor and Pearson had actually made numerous substandard, unsafe alterations to the Property.5 Id.
On November 10, 2016, the Debtor filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Case No. 16-17905 ECF Doc. 1. On March 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant adversary proceeding seeking to have the Judgment deemed nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Case No. 17-00068 ECF Doc. 1-2. On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (hereinafter "Motion for Summary Judgment" or "Summary Judgment"). Id. at 23. On February 20, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in part, finding that collateral estoppel bound the Debtor from challenging the CCP's findings that the Debtor knowingly made false representations in the Disclosure Statement and that the Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of those representations. Id. at 44; Summ. J. Order at ¶ 10. The Debtor conceded at the Summary Judgment hearing that the Plaintiffs had justifiably relied on the false statements in the Disclosure Statement. Tr. Summ. J. Hrg. Jan. 17, 2018 (hereinafter "Tr. Summ. J.") p. 7 lines 4-5. Subsequently, on June 28, 2018, the Court held a trial solely to consider whether the Debtor made false representations in the Disclosure Statement with the intent to deceive required under § 523(a)(2)(A).
The Debtor and the Plaintiffs dispute whether the Debtor made the false representations in the Disclosure Statement with the intent and purpose of deceiving the Plaintiffs. The Debtor argues that because English is the Debtor's second language and because he allegedly did not read the Disclosure Statement, he cannot have intended to deceive the Plaintiffs with it. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court may infer the Debtor's intent to deceive from the magnitude of the concealed defects, the numerous inconsistencies between the Disclosure Statement and the Property's condition, as well as from the Debtor's reckless disregard for the Disclosure Statement's accuracy. The Court agrees that those circumstances allow the Court to infer that the Debtor made false representations in the Disclosure Statement intending to deceive the Plaintiffs so that they would purchase the Property.
To sustain a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor acted with the intent and purpose of deceiving the creditor.6 In re Adalian, 474 B.R. 150, 160 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2012) ; In re Antonious, 358 B.R. 172, 182 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006). However, because a debtor "will rarely, if ever, admit that deception was his purpose," intent to deceive may be inferred from the totality of the surrounding facts and circumstances. In re Reynolds, 193 B.R. 195, 200 (D.N.J. 1996) ; In re Robbins, 562 B.R. 83, 109 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2016) ; In re Ortiz, 514 B.R. 762, 768 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2014) (citing Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Cohn (In re Cohn ), 54 F.3d 1108, 1118-19 (3d Cir.1995) ); In re Singh, 433 B.R. 139, 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010) ; In re Giquinto, 388 B.R. 152, 166 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008). Selective disclosure of only favorable facts about a property may establish intent to deceive. See In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1997) ; In re Freedman, 431 B.R. 245, 257 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010).
Courts may also infer intent to deceive from a debtor's reckless disregard for the truth. In re Bocchino, 794 F.3d 376, 380-82 (3d Cir. 2015) ; In re Cohn, 54 F.3d at 1119 ; In re Acosta, 406 F.3d 367, 373 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Norris, 70 F.3d 27, 30 n.12 (5th Cir. 1995) ); In re Ortiz, 514 B.R. at 768. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial