Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06296/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06296-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAU1nift4 $~~ t ~ -!t b .- ·~ t... tm;rr f!f Ap als 

f ~l'ldt f-'h,~,l,- FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ' . ' . ·· 

J4N 2 ~ 1 _ 1 

In re: EDWARD LEE HAILEY, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERl" t. I..JOECKER 

Clerk 

Debtor. 

DENNIS MAILEY, 

Appellee, 

v. 

EDWARD LEE HAILEY, 

Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-6296 

(D.C. No. 88-2111-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6296 Document: 010110083536 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 1 
- assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Debtor Edward Lee Hailey appeals from an order of the 

district court affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a 

discharge of his debts on the ground that he transferred two 

parcels of real property to his wife within one year of his 

bankruptcy with intent to hinder, defraud, or delay his creditors. 

See 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A). The sole question on appeal is 

whether debtor acted with intent to hinder, defraud, or delay so 

as to preclude discharge. 

The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's assessment 

of debtor's intent de .!lQYQ.• However, the question of debtor's 

intent is strictly a fact question and review on appeal is limited 

to whether the bankruptcy court's determination was clearly 

erroneous. In re Moreno, 892 F.2d 417, 419 (5th Cir. 1990); In re 

Smiley, 864 F.2d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1989); McCormick v. Security 

State Bank, 822 F.2d 806, 808 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Espino, 806 

F.2d 1001, 1002 (11th Cir. 1986); Ford v. Poston, 773 F.2d 52, 56 

(4th Cir. 1985); In re Kaiser, 722 F.2d 1574, 1583 (2d Cir. 1983). 

Although the district court applied the incorrect standard of 

review, we conclude that the district court reached the correct 

result. The bankruptcy court's perception of the evidence as 

establishing that debtor acted with an improper intent was 

plausible and, as such, not clearly erroneous. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6296 Document: 010110083536 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 2 
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6296 Document: 010110083536 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 3