John A. King v. Renee Blackman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: November 8, 2010
• Docket: 10-11232
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11232 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar NOVEMBER 8, 2010 ________________________ JOHN LEY CLERK

D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-01108-JFG, Bankruptcy No. BK-07-05364-TBB-7

In Re: John A. King Debtor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN A. KING,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant.

versus

RENEE BLACKMAN, H. SLOAN BLACKMAN, MISTY D. SHEPHARD,

llllllllllllllllllllDefendants-Appellees,

_______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________

(November 8, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

John King appeals pro se a judgment in favor of Renee Blackman, Sloan

Blackman, and Misty Shephard in their adversary proceeding against King in his

bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy court ruled that King’s debts were

nondischargeable because he made false oaths about the existence of financial

records and about his examination and approval of a statement of financial affairs

and schedules accompanying his petition for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4).

We affirm.

King argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he made false oaths,

but we disagree. King’s statement of financial affairs and schedules omitted assets

and interests in entities and trusts that were relevant to determining his financial

condition. See Swicegood v. Ginn, 924 F.2d 230, 232 (11th Cir. 1999); Chalik v.

Moorefield, 748 F.2d 616, 618–20 (11th Cir. 1984). The bankruptcy court was

entitled to find that King’s omissions were intentional and to discredit his evasive

and inconsistent testimony. See Chalik, 748 F.2d at 619. The bankruptcy court

did not clearly err by denying King a discharge.

King makes two other complaints about the adversary proceeding, but both

complaints are meritless. First, King argues that the bankruptcy court omitted

2 findings of fact from its written order, but the bankruptcy court made extensive

oral findings of fact during the adversarial hearing. King cites no authority that

requires a bankruptcy court to make its findings in a written order. Second, King

complains that the bankruptcy judge was biased, but King failed to raise that

objection in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy judge had the discretion to

question King, comment on the evidence and his knowledge of other proceedings

that related to King’s petition for bankruptcy, and admonish King to respond to

questions. See Fed. R. Evid. 614(b); Hanson v. Waller, 888 F.2d 806, 812–13

(11th Cir. 1989) (discussing Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir.

1979)). The record does not support King’s argument that the bankruptcy judge

abused that discretion.

The judgment in favor of the Blackmans and Shephard is AFFIRMED.