Hobbs v. Rao (In re Rao)

526 B.R. 623
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 26, 2015
DocketCASE NO. 14-11173; ADVERSARY NO. 14-1049
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 526 B.R. 623 (Hobbs v. Rao (In re Rao)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hobbs v. Rao (In re Rao), 526 B.R. 623 (La. 2015).

Opinion

OPINION

Elizabeth W. Magner, Judge

A Complaint to Deny Discharge or, in the Alternative, Dismiss or Convert was filed by the Office of the United States Trustee (“UST”) on. October 1, 2014. In its Complaint, the UST alleged that Debt- or’s Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs were false as Debtor had failed to disclose several assets owned on the Petition date and had failed to amend after discovery was made by the UST. Debtor, Kurella S. Rao (“Debtor”), alleged that the errors were through mistake or oversight, immaterial and Debtor did not intend to hinder, delay or defraud the UST in the administration of his case. Trial on the Complaint was held on February 4, 2015, after which the Court took the matter under advisement.

I. FACTS

On May 12, 2014, Kurella S. Rao (“Debt- or”) filed for voluntary relief under Title II, chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.1 On that same date Debtor filed his Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs.2 Debtor’s wife, Vijaya Rao, as “attorney-in-fact for Kurella S. Rao” signed the bankruptcy petition under penalty of perjury.3 A Chapter 7 trustee was appointed and an initial meeting of the creditors was held June 20, 2014.4 Debtor did not appear and the meeting was continued.5

The continued meeting of creditors was held on August 1, 2014.6 Debtor appeared and testified that prior to filing for bankruptcy relief, Vijaya Rao reviewed the bankruptcy documents with him line-byline via telephone. Although he never saw the documents, he authorized Vijaya Rao to sign the documents on his behalf and file his case.7

As of the Petition date, Debtor reported one checking account with a balance of $100.00 in the Belize Bank of Dargia (“Belize Bank Account”) and no automobiles.8

[626]*626Not disclosed on his Schedules of Assets was a Wells Fargo Essential Checking Account (“Wells Fargo Account”)9 with a balance on the Petition date of $616.68.10 Debtor also maintained a Capital One Checking Account (“Capital One Account”) 11 which on the Petition date had a balance $931.10.12 Debtor also owned a 1996 Toyota 4Runner. In addition, Debtor failed to disclose several transfers to his wife and daughter within a year of his filing and his wife’s income.

Debtor is a physician and United States citizen living in Belize. His last residence prior to moving to Belize was in New Orleans, Louisiana, where his wife still resides. Debtor has lived apart from his wife for approximately four (4) years although they remain married under a. community of acquets and gains regime. He provides her with financial support on a regular basis.

Debtor represented in his filing documents that his gross monthly income was $829.72.13

Within a year of filing for relief, Debtor transferred $28,507.50 to his "wife and $9,000 to his daughter. None of the transfers were disclosed on Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs14 and most were made from the undisclosed Wells Fargo Account, the last having been made on December 16, 2013, or five (5) months before filing.15

II. ANALYSIS

11 U.S.C. § 727 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—
(2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed ...
(A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition.
(4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case—
(A) made a false oath or account.

The UST contends that Debtor’s discharge should be denied pursuant to § 727(a)(2)(A) because Debtor intentionally transferred or concealed property within one year before the date of filing his bankruptcy petition. The UST also contends that denial of discharge is warranted under § 727(a)(4)(A) because Debtor’s Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs contain a series of material errors which were made fraudulently or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

The UST has the burden of proving the essential elements of § 727(a)’s cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence.16

[627]*627A. Denial of Discharge under § 727(a)(2)(A)

To deny discharge under § 727(a)(2)(A), the following four elements must be proven: (1) a transfer of property; (2) belonging to the debtor; (3) within one year of the filing of the petition; (4) with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or officer of the estate.17 The first three factors are not in question. Debtor admits that he transferred property which belonged to him within, one .year of the filing of the petition. In dispute is whether Debtor had the requisite fraudulent intent.

While a showing of actual intent is required, such intent “may be inferred from the actions of the debtor and may be proven by circumstantial evidence.”18 As the court observed in In re Glaser, 49 B.R. 1015, 1019 (D.C.N.Y. June 7, 1985), because a debtor rarely admits his intent was fraudulent, such intent “may be established by circumstantial evidence or by inferences drawn from a course of conduct.”

Factors which tend to evidence actual intent to defraud include:

(1) the lack or inadequacy of consideration; (2) the family, friendship or close associate relationship between the parties; (3) the retention of possession, benefit or use of the property in question; (4) the financial condition of the party sought to be charged both before and after the transaction in question; (5) the existence or cumulative effect of the pattern or series of transactions or course of conduct after incurring of debt, onset of financial difficulties, or pendency or- _ threat of suits by creditors; and (6) the general chronology of events and transactions under inquiry.19

All of the factors or badges of fraud do not have to be present to support a finding of fraudulent intent.20 Further, there is “a presumption of fraudulent intent when a debtor transfers property to relatives.”21

Prior to and following the filing of this case, Debtor maintained a bank account at Wells Fargo. Every month, Debtor’s Social Security benefits of $730.00 were electronically deposited into the account. Debtor alleges that he “forgot” about this account because he rarely used it. He also claims that because its balance on the date of filing was only $616.68 the omission was immaterial.

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

Related

Wise v. Wise (In re Wise)
590 B.R. 401 (E.D. Michigan, 2018)
Strauss v. Brown (In re Brown)
531 B.R. 236 (W.D. Missouri, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
526 B.R. 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-rao-in-re-rao-laeb-2015.