Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06266/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06266-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Wesley Choate
Appellant
The Farm Credit Bank of Wichita
Appellee

Document Text:

FlL~D 

Unl UNITED 'ted S~_ ~t:~.-~~--1:.~! AP~ STATES COURT OF APPEALS ,.~,- · 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MJ\R O 4 1992 

In Re: WILLIAM WESLEY CHOATE, 

Debtor, 

THE FARM CREDIT BANK OF WICHITA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM WESLEY CHOATE, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 91-6266 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-1188-P) 

) (W.D. Okla . ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before EBEL, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge . 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by 

designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* 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 o f the law of 

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

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6266 Document: 010110226723 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 1 
34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The Farm Credit Bank of Wichita (Bank) commenced this 

adversary proceeding within Debtor's bankruptcy action, asserting 

state law tort claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, 

intentional interference with contractual relationships, and 

slander of title. Following trial, the bankruptcy court entered 

judgment in favor of the Bank in the amount of $499,606.32 on the 

claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and slander of 

title. The court entered judgment in Debtor's favor on the claim 

of intentional interference with contractual relationships. The 

bankruptcy court further determined that this debt was 

nondischargeable because the debt was the result of a malicious 

and willful injury to the Bank. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). 

Debtor appealed to the district court, which affirmed. 

Debtor now appeals that affirmance to this court, asserting a 

number of arguments challenging the bankruptcy court's 

determination that Debtor was liable in tort, the amount of 

damages the bankruptcy court awarded, and the bankruptcy court's 

determination that the debt was nondischargeable. 

We review the district and bankruptcy courts' legal 

conclusions de nova, but we will not disturb the bankruptcy 

court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. In re Burkart 

Farm & Livestock, 938 F.2d 1114, 1115 (10th Cir. 1991). Upon 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6266 Document: 010110226723 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 2 
consideration of the parties' arguments, we determine this appeal 

lacks merit. We, therefore, affirm for substantially the reasons 

stated in the district court's order of June 17, 1991. 1 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John L. Kane, Jr. 

Senior District Judge 

1 The Bank's motion to attach the bankruptcy court's order to 

its brief is GRANTED. Debtor's motion to abate the appeal is 

DENIED. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6266 Document: 010110226723 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 3