UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

TRIUMPHANT GOLD, LTD.,

Appellant, 

v. No. 4:22-cv-0274-P

DARREN SCOTT MATLOFF,

Appellee.

OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Appeal of the Final Judgment of the 

United States Bankruptcy Court, on remand from the Fifth Circuit, in 

Case No. 19-44253-MXM-7, dated March 24, 2022, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 158(a)(1). ECF Nos. 1, 4-1. 

BACKGROUND

This case arises from Appellee’s default on several millions of dollars 

in loans to finance his company’s delivery of consumer drones in time for 

the 2016 holiday season. ECF No. 4-1. To keep things relevant for the 

purposes of this Order, the Court will refer its dear reader to its prior 

Opinion and Order, ECF No. 25, and the Fifth Circuit’s Opinion and 

Order, Triumphant Gold, Ltd. v. Matloff, Case No. 23-10698, Doc. No. 

61-1 (5th Cir. 2024), for summaries of this case’s factual background.

After the Bankruptcy Court conducted a full trial, this Court 

affirmed on June 1, 2023. ECF Nos. 25; 26. Triumphant Gold appealed, 

and treating this case like a hot potato with leprosy, the Fifth Circuit 

vacated and remanded. Triumphant Gold, Ltd., Case No. 23-10698, Doc. 

No. 61-1. In brief, the Fifth Circuit vacated because this Court should 

have applied a de novo standard of review, id. at 4, and remanded

because they didn’t want to do it.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing the decision of a bankruptcy court, the District Court 

functions as an appellate court and applies the standard of review used 

Case 4:22-cv-00274-P Document 33 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 22793
2

in a federal court of appeals. In re Webb, 954 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Therefore, the District Court reviews the Bankruptcy Court’s findings 

of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. In re Dennis, 330 

F.3d 696, 701 (5th Cir. 2003). “Under a clear error standard, [the] court 

will reverse only if, on the entire evidence, [it] is left with the definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re American 

Housing Foundation, 785 F.3d 143, 152 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Morrison v. W. Builders of Amarillo, Inc., 555 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 

2009)). 

ANALYSIS

For the reasons stated in the Bankruptcy Judge’s Memorandum 

Opinion and this Court’s prior Opinion and Order, the Court applies a 

clear error standard of review only to the Bankruptcy Judge’s findings 

of fact and leaves its conclusions undisturbed. 

As for the appeal’s questions of law, the Court applies a de novo 

standard of review. “[T]he decision to discharge . . . debt represents a 

conclusion regarding the legal effect of the bankruptcy court’s factual 

findings as to [the debtor’s] circumstances.” U.S. Dep’t of Educ. v. 

Gerhardt (In re Gerhardt), 348 F.3d 89, 91 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Having concluded—again—that the Bankruptcy Court’s factual 

findings are sound, the Court now reviews them for whether their legal 

effect—supporting a discharge of Appellee’s debts—was proper under 

11 U.S.C. §§ 523 & 727.

After conducting a de novo review of the Bankruptcy Judge’s 

Memorandum Opinion, the Parties’ briefs, and the record in this case, 

the Court concludes that Appellees’ discharge under § 523 was legally 

proper because the evidence at trial showed that amounts due did not 

arise from a “willful and malicious injury” inflicted through Appellee’s 

alleged breach of contract, § 523(a)(6), and that the guaranty was not 

based on Appellee’s alleged “false representation” of his intent to repay. 

§ 523(a)(2)(A). Further, the Court concludes that Appellee’s discharge 

under § 727 was legally proper because evidence at trial showed that 

Appellee did not purportedly fail to properly preserve financial records, 

§ 727(a)(3) & (a)(7), and did not allegedly transfer or permit his 

Case 4:22-cv-00274-P Document 33 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 22794
3

companies to transfer property with the intent to hinder, delay, or 

defraud Appellant. § 727(a)(2)(A) & (a)(7).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, having conducted a de novo review of 

the Bankruptcy Court’s findings and conclusions, its reasoning is 

AFFIRMED. Thus, the Final Judgment of the United States 

Bankruptcy Court in Case No. 19-44253-MXM-7, dated March 24, 2022 

(ECF No. 4-1) is AFFIRMED. 

SO ORDERED on this 11th day of April 2024.

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:23-cv-00841-P

REGIONS BANK ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion 

and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.

______________________________________________

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00274-P Document 33 Filed 04/11/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 22795