Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-1_06-ap-01001/USCOURTS-canb-1_06-ap-01001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dawn Jean Vasina
Defendant
Jeffry G. Locke
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

DAWN JEAN VASINA, No. 05-13204

Debtor(s).

______________________________________/

JEFFRY G. LOCKE, Trustee,

 Plaintiff(s),

v. A.P. No. 06-1001

DAWN JEAN VASINA,

 

 Defendant(s).

_______________________________________/

 Memorandum After Trial

_________________

The schedules filed be debtor and defendant Dawn Jean Vasina in this Chapter 7 case were

rampantly false. Representing herself, she somehow came to the conclusion that only “personal” affairs were

involved, so she omitted any mention of a sole proprietorship business she sold just before she filed her

petition. Not only did she not disclose the sale of the business, but she also failed to disclose that several

creditors had been preferentially paid from the escrow and that she still had about $1,800.00 due to her from

the escrow. She also failed to schedule a lawsuit pending against her during the year before bankruptcy and

Entered on Docket 

January 26, 2007

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK 

U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 06-01001 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/26/07 Entered: 01/26/07 13:55:45 Page 1 of 2 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

two closed bank accounts. For these reasons, the Trustee seeks denial of her discharge pursuant to §

727(a)(4)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which bars a discharge to any debtor who knowingly and fraudulently

makes a false oath.

There is no doubt that Vasina’s representing, under penalty of perjury, that her schedules were true

and correct was false. Moreover, there is a limit to the degree of ignorance a pro se debtor can plead as an

excuse. There is certainly enough evidence to allow the court to draw the inference that Vasina’s false oath

was knowing and fraudulent.

However, the court declines to draw the necessary inference for two reasons. First, while it is very

possible that Vasina’s omissions were intentional, the court cannot say it is more likely than not that she

intended to defraud her estate. Second, her testimony that she made no attempt to hide the business affairs

and disclosed them to the trustee at the meeting of creditors is credible and un-rebutted, as the trustee did not

testify at the trial. Accordingly, while the court strongly disapproves of Vasina’s conduct, the court cannot

make the finding, necessary to deny her discharge, that her schedules were falsified with fraudulent intent.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint, which will be dismissed with

prejudice. Each side shall bear its own costs.

This memorandum constitutes the court’s findings and conclusions pursuant to FRCP 52(a) and

FRBP 7052. The court will enter an appropriate judgment.

Dated: January 26, 2007

SAlan Jaroslovsky

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 

 

Case: 06-01001 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/26/07 Entered: 01/26/07 13:55:45 Page 2 of 2