Charles Higgins v. Melba Olson

32 F. App'x 194
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 10, 2002
Docket01-3576
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 F. App'x 194 (Charles Higgins v. Melba Olson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles Higgins v. Melba Olson, 32 F. App'x 194 (8th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In August 1997, a Missouri trial court concluded that Melba Olson had converted property belonging to Charles Higgins. The court awarded compensatory damages, but not the punitive damages Higgins had requested. This appeal arises out of Olson’s bankruptcy filing, and Higgins’s subsequent successful attempt to have the state court judgment declared non-dischargeable.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), a debtor may not discharge debt “for willful or malicious injury” to the property of another. The bankruptcy court 1 held a trial to determine whether Olson acted willfully and maliciously. It concluded she had and ordered the debt non-dischargeable. On appeal to the district court, 2 Olson argued the state court’s failure to award punitive damages was a ruling that she did not act willfully or maliciously, and should have had collateral-estoppel effect in the bankruptcy court. The district court disagreed. Olson renews her argument in this Court.

Upon de novo review, see In re Scarborough, 171 F.3d 638, 641 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 931, 120 S.Ct. 330, 145 L.Ed.2d 258 (1999), we conclude the district court properly found collateral estoppel was inapplicable. For collateral estoppel to apply, the issue must have been “necessarily and unambiguously” decided in the prior action. See State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911, 922 (Mo.1996) (en banc). The issue of willfulness and malice was not essential to the state court’s determination that Olson had converted the property. See Coffman v. Faulkner, 591 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Mo.Ct.App.1979) (questions of good faith or motive are not generally involved in conversion actions). Neither was the issue essential to the state court’s decision not to award punitive damages. See Koehler v. Warren Skinner, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (punitive damages are never a matter of right; whether or not they are awarded lies within the trial court’s discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable David P. McDonald, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rocco v. Goldberg (In re Goldberg)
487 B.R. 112 (E.D. New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-higgins-v-melba-olson-ca8-2002.