HA Company of Provo v. Campbell

Utah Supreme Court

HA Company of Provo v. Campbell

413 P.2d 595, 17 Utah 2d 401, 1966 Utah LEXIS 494

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 26, 1966

Docket10486

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 413 P.2d 595 (HA Company of Provo v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HA Company of Provo v. Campbell, 413 P.2d 595, 17 Utah 2d 401, 1966 Utah LEXIS 494 (Utah 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

WADE, Justice.

H. A. Company of Provo brought an action to recover from Paul L. Campbell and Willa Campbell, the former wife of Paul L. Campbell, for a balance due on a promis *402 sory note in the amount of $4,109.34, part of which loan was granted upon an alleged false financial statement submitted by Paul L. Campbell to obtain additional funds. Paul L. Campbell pleaded a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense to this suit. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the H. A. Company.

The tmdisputed facts are that for the purpose of obtaining the additional loan, Paul L. Campbell furnished a written financial statement in which he failed to list debts he owed to Sears Roebuck of $98, to the National Finance Co. of $290, and to the Geneva Federal Credit Union of $1293, although he wrote on such statement that he had no other debts than those listed in that statement. He explained this oversight as due to the fact that he was not sure whether he owed Sears Roebuck anything, since his wife was the one who bought and charged at that store; that he had overlooked the amount due the National Finance Co. and did not consider the amount due the Credit Union as a debt which should be listed, since payments to it were deducted from his paycheck, and in his mind was in the same category as amounts deducted by his employer for income taxes, etc. The court did not accept this explanation and found that the failure to list the written debts in the financial statement submitted to obtain the additional loan was given with intent to defraud the Ií. A. Company of Provo.

We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain such finding of fact, and therefore the debt involved herein, under the provisions of Title 11, U.S.C., Sec. 35 of the Bankruptcy Act, is not dischargeable.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

HENRIOD, C. J., and McDONOUGH, CROCKETT and C ALLISTER, JJ., concur.

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

WADE, Justice.

H. A. Company of Provo brought an action to recover from Paul L. Campbell and Willa Campbell, the former wife of Paul L. Campbell, for a balance due on a promis *402 sory note in the amount of $4,109.34, part of which loan was granted upon an alleged false financial statement submitted by Paul L. Campbell to obtain additional funds. Paul L. Campbell pleaded a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense to this suit. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the H. A. Company.

The tmdisputed facts are that for the purpose of obtaining the additional loan, Paul L. Campbell furnished a written financial statement in which he failed to list debts he owed to Sears Roebuck of $98, to the National Finance Co. of $290, and to the Geneva Federal Credit Union of $1293, although he wrote on such statement that he had no other debts than those listed in that statement. He explained this oversight as due to the fact that he was not sure whether he owed Sears Roebuck anything, since his wife was the one who bought and charged at that store; that he had overlooked the amount due the National Finance Co. and did not consider the amount due the Credit Union as a debt which should be listed, since payments to it were deducted from his paycheck, and in his mind was in the same category as amounts deducted by his employer for income taxes, etc. The court did not accept this explanation and found that the failure to list the written debts in the financial statement submitted to obtain the additional loan was given with intent to defraud the Ií. A. Company of Provo.

We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain such finding of fact, and therefore the debt involved herein, under the provisions of Title 11, U.S.C., Sec. 35 of the Bankruptcy Act, is not dischargeable.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

HENRIOD, C. J., and McDONOUGH, CROCKETT and C ALLISTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 P.2d 595, 17 Utah 2d 401, 1966 Utah LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ha-company-of-provo-v-campbell-utah-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack