Shawn Deitz v. Wayne Ford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 28, 2014
• Docket: 12-60036
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: SHAWN DEITZ, No. 12-60036 Debtor, BAP No. 11-1427 SHAWN DEITZ, Appellant, ORDER v.

WAYNE FORD and PATRICIA FORD, Appellees.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Markell, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014 Submission Withdrawn April 10, 2014 Resubmitted July 21, 2014 San Francisco, California

Filed July 28, 2014

Before: Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges. 2 IN RE: DEITZ

SUMMARY*

Bankruptcy Law

The panel issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment awarding money damages to creditors Wayne and Patricia Ford, and ordering that the Fords’ claim be exempted from discharge.

The panel adopted the BAP’s opinion as its own. The BAP held that, even after Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment determining both the amount of the Fords’ damage claims against the debtor Shawn Deitz, and determining that those claims were excepted from discharge. The BAP also held that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the debt owed by Deitz to the Fords was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6).

The panel noted that dischargeability actions are central to federal bankruptcy proceedings and are necessarily resolved during the process of allowing or disallowing claims against the state, and that the dischargeability determination therefore constitutes a public rights dispute that the bankruptcy courts may decide.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. IN RE: DEITZ 3

COUNSEL

Alexander B. Wathen (argued), Wathen & Associates, Houston, Texas, for Appellant.

Thomas H. Armstrong (argued), Law Office of Thomas H. Armstrong, Fresno, California, for Appellees.

ORDER

Chapter 7 debtor Shawn Deitz seeks review of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment (1) awarding money damages to creditors Wayne and Patricia Ford; and (2) ordering that the Fords’ claim be excepted from discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.1

This court reviews decisions of the BAP de novo and applies the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. In re Boyajian, 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). In our review, we conclude that the well-reasoned majority opinion of the BAP, In re Deitz, 469 B.R. 11 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012), correctly sets forth the law and the application of that law as appropriate in this case. We therefore adopt it as our own, and we attach it as an appendix to this order.

1 Following oral argument, we withdrew submission of this appeal pending issuance of a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, No. 12-1200. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 9, 2014. 4 IN RE: DEITZ

We further note that dischargeability actions are “central to federal bankruptcy proceedings,” and they are “necessarily resolved during the process of allowing or disallowing claims against the estate.” Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for N. Cal. v. Moxley, 734 F.3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2013). “The dischargeability determination . . . . therefore constitutes a public rights dispute that the bankruptcy courts may decide.” Id.

AFFIRMED. IN RE: DEITZ 5

Appendix 6 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 1 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 7 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 2 of 35 8 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 3 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 9 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 4 of 35 10 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 5 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 11 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 6 of 35 12 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 7 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 13 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 8 of 35 14 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 9 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 15 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 10 of 35 16 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 11 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 17 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 12 of 35 18 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 13 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 19 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 14 of 35 20 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 15 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 21 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 16 of 35 22 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 17 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 23 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 18 of 35 24 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 19 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 25 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 20 of 35 26 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 21 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 27 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 22 of 35 28 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 23 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 29 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 24 of 35 30 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 25 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 31 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 26 of 35 32 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 27 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 33 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 28 of 35 34 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 29 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 35 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 30 of 35 36 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 31 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 37 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 32 of 35 38 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 33 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 39 Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 34 of 35 40 IN RE: DEITZ Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 35 of 35