You are here

Section 727 Discharge

Plitt International, LLC v. Heckler (In re Heckler) (Apr. 15, 2014)
The plaintiffs formed a company called West End Lighting, LLC with the Debtor  and claimed that the Debtor’s discharge should be denied on the grounds the Debtor intended to hinder or defraud the plaintiffs by misappropriating West End money and property within one year of filing his bankruptcy petition. The Court analyzed the factors that should be considered in determining actual intent to defraud under section 727(a)(2), citing Robertson v. Dennis (In re Dennis), 330 F.3d 696, 701-02 (5th Cir. 2013), and ultimately reached the conclusion that several factors indicated that the Debtor possessed the requisite intent and denied the Debtor’s discharge under section 727(a)(2). While the plaintiffs raised issues under section 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6), the Court did not need to reach a decision on those issues, relying on precedent that once a bankruptcy court has determined that discharge must be denied for one reason, it does not need to decide the propriety of any of the other grounds for denying discharge.
WL Cite: Plitt International, LLC v. Heckler (In re Heckler), Adv No. 13-01077, 2014 WL 1491325, at *1 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2014).