Lincoln Bank v. Scardino (In re Scardino)

E.D. Pennsylvania

Lincoln Bank v. Scardino (In re Scardino)

42 B.R. 310, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4996

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 19, 1984

DocketBankruptcy No. 80-00573 T; Adv. No. 80-0434

StatusPublished

This text of 42 B.R. 310 (Lincoln Bank v. Scardino (In re Scardino)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lincoln Bank v. Scardino (In re Scardino), 42 B.R. 310, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4996 (Pa. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this adversary proceeding, the plaintiff has filed, pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), a complaint objecting to the discharge of the debtors’ joint debt to the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000.00. For the reasons hereinafter given,- we find that the debt is nondischargeable as to Francesco Scardino, but is dischargeable as to Anne Scardino, his wife.¹

[311]*311Through grossly fraudulent conduct, involving both oral and written statements, Mr. Scardino induced the plaintiff to extend a $100,000.00 line of credit to a corporation with which Mr. Scardino had no connection, and which was not involved in the transaction. Mr. Scardino fraudulently used the $100,000.00 for his own purposes. Subsequently, after the plaintiff learned of Mr. Scardino’s fraudulent conduct, and because of that fraudulent conduct, the debtors repaid $20,000.00 to the plaintiff and signed a judgment note payable to the plaintiff for the remaining $80,000.00. It is this $80,-000.00 judgment note debt which is the subject of the present proceeding.

The debtors argue that they committed no fraud with regard to the judgment note itself and that they did not receive any money, property, or consideration of any kind in return for signing the judgment note. Therefore, they contend that the judgment note debt is dischargeable.

We find no merit whatsoever in the debtors’ argument. It is abundantly clear to us that the judgment note debt is the direct result of Mr. Scardino’s prior grossly fraudulent conduct and cannot be considered separately from such conduct for dischargeability purposes. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is nondischargeable as to Mr. Scardino.

We find, however, that the plaintiff has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Scardino took part in her husband’s fraudulent conduct. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is dis-chargeable as to Mrs. Scardino.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this adversary proceeding, the plaintiff has filed, pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), a complaint objecting to the discharge of the debtors’ joint debt to the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000.00. For the reasons hereinafter given,- we find that the debt is nondischargeable as to Francesco Scardino, but is dischargeable as to Anne Scardino, his wife.¹

[311]*311Through grossly fraudulent conduct, involving both oral and written statements, Mr. Scardino induced the plaintiff to extend a $100,000.00 line of credit to a corporation with which Mr. Scardino had no connection, and which was not involved in the transaction. Mr. Scardino fraudulently used the $100,000.00 for his own purposes. Subsequently, after the plaintiff learned of Mr. Scardino’s fraudulent conduct, and because of that fraudulent conduct, the debtors repaid $20,000.00 to the plaintiff and signed a judgment note payable to the plaintiff for the remaining $80,000.00. It is this $80,-000.00 judgment note debt which is the subject of the present proceeding.

The debtors argue that they committed no fraud with regard to the judgment note itself and that they did not receive any money, property, or consideration of any kind in return for signing the judgment note. Therefore, they contend that the judgment note debt is dischargeable.

We find no merit whatsoever in the debtors’ argument. It is abundantly clear to us that the judgment note debt is the direct result of Mr. Scardino’s prior grossly fraudulent conduct and cannot be considered separately from such conduct for dischargeability purposes. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is nondischargeable as to Mr. Scardino.

We find, however, that the plaintiff has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Scardino took part in her husband’s fraudulent conduct. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is dis-chargeable as to Mrs. Scardino.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 B.R. 310, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lincoln-bank-v-scardino-in-re-scardino-paeb-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack