FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 42 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 02 65 -MS S Bk cy . No. 3 :0 3- bk -0 48 37 -J AF InRe: JANICE K. J ENNINGS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Deb to r,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ BRANDON JAM ES MAXFIELD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us JANIC E K. JENNINGS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 22 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Ja ni ce K. Je nn in gs ap pe al s fr om a di stric t co urt o rd er ru li ng th athe r de bt fro m a frau du le nttra ns fer ju dg m en t was no nd is ch arg eab le inba nk rupt cy un de r 11 U.S.C. § 5 23 (a)( 6) . Thatsec ti on ex cep ts fro m di sc ha rg e an y

de bt“ fo r wil lfu l an d m al ic io us in

jury by th e d eb to r to an ot he r en ti ty or to th e p ro pe rty of an ot he r en ti ty.” Id. W e are ask edto de te rm in e whe th er a fr au du le nttra ns fer o f pr op ert y by a co-c on sp ira to r co ns ti tu te d awil lfu l an d m al ic io us in jury und er § 52 3( a)(6 ). Afte r a rev ie w of t he reco rd , andwit h t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we af firm . I. Whe n Ap pe ll ee Br an do n J am es Max fie ldwas s ev en y ears ol d, h e was ren de redpe rm an en tl y

qu adrip le gi c aft er b ei ng sh otby the acci de nt al di sc ha rg e o f a h an dg un . The h an dg un was m an uf actur edby Bry co Arm s, In c., an d d is tri bu te d by B.L. Je nn in gs , Inc ., com pa ni es co nt ro ll edby App el la ntJan ic e Je nn in gs ’s fo rm er h us ba nd , Bru ce J en ni ng s. In May 200 1, M ax fie ldsu edBru ce J en ni ng s an d th e two co m

pa ni es forpe rs on al in

jury in Ca li fo rn iast at e co urt. InDecem be r 20 01 , Max fie ldfil edanam en de d c om pl ai ntto ad d J an ic e (Bru ce’s s eco ndex -wif

e), An naLeah Jen ni ng s (h is th irdex -wif e), an d RKB In ve st m en ts as d efen da nt s i n t he pe rs on al -in jury acti on , see ki ng to ho ldth em li ab le un de r joi ntve ntur e/ en te rp ris e, pa rtn ers hi p, an d a lt er-e go th eo rie s. RKB i s a 2pa rtn ers hi p c reat edby Bruce an d J an ic e, who act edas c o- tru st ees of thr ee

Cal ifo rn iatru st s t ha t wer e th e th ree p art ne rs in RKB. RKB h el d t it le to a pa rcel of pr op erty , cal le d S ho rev ie w, whi ch is rel ev an t t o t he in st an t p ro ceed in gs . InFeb ru ary 20 02 , Bru ce d ire ct edJan ic e to ex ecu te a de edon be ha lf o f RKB tra ns feri ng Sh or ev ie w to Ann a Leah Jen ni ng s. When Jan ic e co m pl et edth e tra ns fer, Br

uc e rec or de d t he de ed . Max fie ldbe cam e aware of t he tra ns fer thr ou gh Bru ce’s res po ns es to in te rro ga to rie s i n t he pe rs on al -in jury acti on . In re sp on se , Max fie ldfil eda co m

pl ai ntin Cal ifo rn iast at e co urt ag ai ns t J an ic e, RKB, an d t he tru st s fo rm in g RKB’s pa rtn ers hi p, al le gi ng frau d, co ns pi racy, andfrau du le nt tra ns fer. On M ay 13 , 20 03 , a jury fo un d B ru ce, Bryco Arm s, In c., an d B .L. Jen ni ng s, In c. li ab le forMax fie ld ’s in jury, an d a ward edMax fie ld$2 4,7 74 ,14 6.5 3 i n da m ag es . At th atti m e, th ere h adbe en no de te rm in at io n a s t o M ax fie ld ’s join t ve ntur e/ en te rp ris e, pa rtn ers hi p, an d a lt er-e go cla im s ag ai ns t J an ic e, Ann a Leah , an d R KB. The n ex t d ay , Jan ic e, Bru ce, Bryco Arm s, In c., B.L. Jen ni ng s, In c., an d RKB fi le d C hapt er 1 1 b an krup tc y pe ti ti on s. J an ic e’s pe ti ti on was l at er co nv ert ed to a Ch ap te r 7 p et it io n. J an ic e an d R KB fi le d d ecl arat ory act io ns see ki ng to de te rm in e whi ch of t he ir a ss et s cr ed it or s, i nc lu di ng Max fie ld , m ay reac h. Sh ortl y th erea fte r, Max fie ld ’s st at e cas es were t ran sf erre d t o t he ba nk rupt cy 3co urt an d jo in edwit h t he de cl arat ory act io ns . Then , in Ju ne 20 07 , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t J an ic e p art ic ip at edin a joi ntve ntur e wit h B ru ce, Bryco Arm s, In c., an d B .L. Jen ni ng s, In c., an d was th eref or e joi nt ly andsev eral ly liab le with t ho se pa rti es forda m ag es award edto Max fie ldin hi s p ers on al in jury sui t. The co urt al so fou ndth atJan ic e was a co ns pi rat orwit h B ru ce an d R KB in th e fraudul en t tra ns fer o f Sh or ev ie w andwas t he refo re joi nt ly andsev eral ly liab le forth e da m ag es to Bru ce’s cre di to rs in th e am ou ntof $ 3,9 00 ,00 0, t he va lu e o f Sh or ev ie w. Inreac hi ng th es e co nc lu si on s, the bankrupt cy co urt m ad e se ve ral fin di ng s. Alt ho ug h J an ic e te st ifi edth atth e d eedsh e si gn edto Sh or ev ie w was a r ep la cem en t de edfor on e ex ecu te d i n 1 99 5 a s p artof B ru ce’s d iv or ce s et tl em en t wi th Ann a Leah , th e co urt fo un d thi s t es ti m on y in cred ib le in li gh t o f ear li er t es ti m on y in an un rel at edcas e th atBru ce h adno ou ts tand in g o bl ig at io n t o An naLeah res ul ti ng fro m th ei r di vo rce. In st ead , th e co urt fo un d t ha t J an ic e “ kn ew th atRKB was a de fen da ntin th e Ma xf

ie ldcas e, in whi ch Max fie ldwas c la im in g m il li on s o f do ll ars in da m ag es .” Andsh e kne w th atSh or ev ie w, a m ul ti -m il li on do ll ar pr op erty , was u ne nc um

be red . Thu s, t he bank rupt cy co urt co nc lu de d t ha t J an ic e was li ab le to Bru ce’s cre di to rs for th e v al ue of S ho rev ie w bec au se sh e “ kn ew th at RKB, thr ou gh Bru ce J en ni ng s, i nt en de d t o tran sf er t he Sh or ev ie w Pro pe rty to Ann a Leah Jen ni ng s t o k eep itou t o f th e h an ds of c red it or s.” 4Ja ni ce n ev er ch al le ng edth e b an krup tc y co urt’s ru li ng . Andin Decem be r 20 07 , Max fie ldfil edanad ve rs ary co m pl ai ntinba nk rupt cy

co urt ag ai ns t J an ic e, se ek in g a n e xc ep ti on un de r 11 U.S.C. § 5 23 (a)( 6) to Jan ic e’s Ch ap te r 7 d eb t di sc ha rg e, in th e am ou ntof S ho rev ie w’ s v al ue . Und er § 52 3( a)(6 ), an y de bt“ fo r wil lfu l an d m al ic io us in

jury by th e d eb to r to an ot he r en ti ty or to th e p ro pe rty of an ot he r en ti ty” is e xc ep te d fr om di sc ha rg e in ba nkrupt cy . 11 U.S.C. § 5 23 (a)( 6) . Ja ni ce re sp on de d b y

fil in g am ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e b an krup tc y co urt g ran te d t ha t m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th ata co ns pi racy clai m , su ch as t he on e h ere a ga in stJan ic e, was no t t he so rt o f in te nt io na l t ort t ha t § 52 3( a)(6 ) req ui redfordi sc ha rg e. On ap pe al , th e d is tri ctco urt re ve rs edan d re m an de d, fi nd in g “ th atin cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces wil lfu l an d m al ic io us in jury m ay be in fli ct edby a co-c on sp ira to r.” On re m an d, t he ba nk rupt cy co urt g ran te d J an ic e’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, fi nd in g t ha t t he de btowed—wh ic h t he co urt s ai d re su lt edfro m th e pe rs on al in

jury sui t— di d n otres ul t fr om wil lfu l an d m al ic io us in

jury by th e de bt or . Furt he rm or e, th e b an krup tc y co urt fo un d t ha t, ev en th ou gh Jan ic e ai de d i n th e Sh or ev ie w tra ns fer wi th kn owl ed ge of t he Max fie ldsu itan d o f Bru ce’s d es ire to ke ep Sh or ev ie w ou t o f hi s cr ed it or s’ han ds , herco nduc t an d kno wled ge were

“ in su ffi ci en t as a m at te r of law t o e st ab li sh th e in te ntto ha rm or c au se in

jury to [Ma xf ie ld ] as requi redby § 52 3( a)(6 ).” Andth e co urt s ta te d t ha t, ev en if J an ic e 5act edwit h i nt en t t o h arm Max fie ldun de r th atsec ti on , herpa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy “ was no t s ub st an ti al ly certa into cau se in jury to” M ax fie ldbe cau se th e Sh or ev ie w tra ns fer o ccu rredov er a year be fo re Ma xf ie ldob ta in eda jud gm en t i n hi s p ers on al in

jury acti on . Max fie ldag ai n app eal edto th e d is tri ctco urt, ar gu in g tha t J an ic e’s act iv e pa rti ci pa ti on in th e fraudul en t t ran sf er s at is fie d t he “ wil lfu l an d m al ic io us ” st an da rdin § 5 23 (a)( 6) , andth athe po ss es se d aco gn iz ab le in te res t i n S ho rev ie w atth e ti m e o f it s t ran sf

er s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh th atJan ic e’s act io ns were subs ta nt ia ll y

cert ai n t o c au se hi m

in jury. The d is tri ctco urt ag reed . The co urt em ph as iz edth atev id en ce i n t he reco rdsh owe d t ha t J an ic e kne w th at : (1 ) th e Sh or ev ie w dee d was no t a r ep la cem en t d eedth atwas p artof the 19 95 di vo rce be twee n B ru ce an d An naLeah ; (2 ) Bru ce h adno ou ts ta nd in g o bl ig at io ns to Ann a Leah fro m

th ei r 19 95 di vo rce; (3) RKB, Ja ni ce, an d An naLeah were d efen da nt s i n Max fie ld ’s per so na l i nju ry act io n, wh ic h i nv ol ve d m il li on s o f do ll ars in da m ag es ; (4 ) Bru ce i nv es te d m il li on s o f do ll ars in Sh or ev ie w, whi ch was u ne nc um be red ; an d (5 ) RKB, thr ou gh Bru ce, i nt en de d t o t ran sf er Sh or ev ie w to ke ep itou t o f th e ha nd s o f cre di to rs . Andth e d is tri ctco urt p oi nt edou t tha t t he ba nk rupt cy co urt ha d d is cred it edJan ic e’s se lf- se rv in g t es ti m on y th atsh e d idno t kno w th e n atur e o f th e Sh or ev ie w tra ns fer. 6The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t hi s ev id en ce, wh ic h was su ffi ci en t t o

es tabl is h afrau du le nttra ns fer, al so sat is fie d t he requi rem en ts of § 52 3( a)(6 ). Sp eci fic al ly, th e co urt fo un d tha t J an ic e’s “ un di sp ut edco nduc t co ns ti tu te [d ] a wil lfu l an d m al ic io us att em ptto in jure Max fie ld ’s in te res ts , as am at te r of law o n th is reco rd .” The c ou rt m ad e cl ear t ha t t he factth atMax fie ld ’s per so na l i nju ry cl ai m ha d n otbe en reduc edto a jud gm en t b efo re h e in it ia te d h is frau du le nt tra ns fer c la im

di d n otaffe ctth e § 52 3( a)(6 ) an al y si s b ecau se , un de r Cal ifo rn ia la w, a to rt c la im an t i s a “ cred it or ” who m ay att acka frau du le nttra ns fer. Th e co urt t he refo re re ve rs edth e b an krup tc y co urt’s ru li ng , con cl ud in g t ha t, as a m at te r of law, J an ic e’s ad

jud ic at edde btof $ 3,9 00 ,00 0 was no nd is ch arg eab le un de r § 5 23 (a)( 6) . The d is tri ctco urt d ire ct edth e b an krup tc y co urt t o e nt er jud gm en t i n fav orof M ax fie ld . This ap pe al fol lo wed . II.

“ The ba nk rupt cy

co urt’s fi nd in gs of f

actare re vi ewed‘ un de r th e cl earl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ard .’ ” In re Bu ilde rs Tra ns p., In c. , 47 1 F .3d11 78 , 11 84 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng In re Fr et z , 24 4 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 01 )). “ ‘Con cl us io ns of law, wh et he r fro m

th e b an krup tc y

co urt o r th e d is tri ctco urt, ar e rev ie wed de no vo .’ ” Id. (qu ot in g In re Fr et z , 24 4 F .3dat 1 32 6) . Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if the m ov an t s ho ws tha t t he re i s n o g en ui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al 7factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a). Th us , we rev ie w de no vo th e b an krup tc y an d d is tri ctco urts ’ jud gm en ts as a m at te r of law. In re Bu ilde rs Tra ns p. , 47 1 F .3dat 1 18 4. III. Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s t he is su e o f whe th er J an ic e Je nn in gs wil lfu ll y an d m al ic io us ly inju redMax fie ldor h is pro pe rty un de r 11 U.S.C. § 5 23 (a)( 6) . Jan ic e Je nn in gs arg ue s t ha t (1 ) ne it he r Max fie ldno r hi s p ro pe rty su ffer edanin jury; and (2 ) ev en if a n i nju ry

oc cu rred , th e in

jury w as no t i nf

li ct edwil lfu ll y

or m al ic io us ly. Each of t he se is ad dr es se d i n turn. 1 A. In jury to M ax fie ldor h is pro pe rty Sect io n 5 23 (a)( 6) ex cep ts fro m di sc ha rg e in bankrupt cy

an y de btth atres ul ts fro m “ wil lfu l an d m al ic io us in jury by th e d eb to r to an ot he r en ti ty or to th e pr op erty of a no th er en ti ty.” 11 U.S.C. § 52 3( a)(6 ). Jan ic e co nt en ds th at , bec au se he r ob li ga ti on to Max fie ldvi a th e p ers on al in jury j ud gm en t ar os e aft er t he J anice argues, in the alter native, that the district cour t erre d in directingjudgme nt in 1 favor of Maxfield beca

use it did not address her

aff irmative def

ense f or setoff based on a

n alleg ed $3 million pay

ment Maxfield rece ived in a settlement a g ree ment. But Janice neve r mentioned this defense in response to Maxfield’s brief befor e the district cour

t, as requir ed by Rule 56 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. See Int’l Stamp Art, Inc. v . U.S. Postal Serv. , 456 F.3d 1270, 1274 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“I f the movant be ars the bur den of pr oof on an issue beca use, as a defe ndant, it is assertingan af firmative de fense , it mustestablish that there is no g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to any

element of

that defe nse.”) . Be causeshe fa iled to argue the issue bef

ore the district court, it is waived her e. Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. , 601 F.3d 1224, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010). 8frau du le nttrans fer, s he co ul d n otha ve in jure d M ax fie ldor h is pro pe rty by tra ns ferr in g S ho rev ie w. Insupp ort o f th is arg um en t, J an ic e u rg es us to fol lo w th e d eci si on of t he Nin th Cir cu itin In re S

ay lo r , 10 8 F .3d21 9 (9 th Cir . 19 97 ), whi ch als o i nv ol ve d a n al le ge d fr au du le nttra ns fer u nd er Ca li fo rn ialaw. In t ha t ca se , th e Nin th Cir cu it 2 affi rm edth e b an krup tc y

an d d is tri ctco urts ’ fin di ng s t ha t a d eb t i nc urredth ro ug h a st at e co urt b reac h- of

-co nt ractjud gm en t d idno t g iv e a cre di to r an actua l p ro pe rty in te res t i n p ro pe rty tha t t he de bt or s h adtra ns ferr edfrau du le nt ly dur in g t he pe nd en cy of t he bre ach -o f-co nt ractact io n. Id. at 2 20 -2 1. Be cau se th e cre di to r ha d no sec ur ity

in te res t i n t he pro pe rty tran sf erre d a ndno jud gm en t o n t he frau du le nt tra ns fer c la im

at t he ti m e h e b ro ug htth e n on di sc ha rg eab il it y co m pl ai nt , th e cred it orlac ke d s ta nd in g t o s eekex cep ti on fro m di sc ha rg e u nd er § 52 3( a)(6 ). Id. at 22 1. W e are no t p ers ua de d t o app ly In re S ay lo r he re b ecau se th is cas e p res en ts a cri ti cal di st in ct io n: Max fie ldha d o bt ai ne d ajud gm en t o n h is frau du le nttra ns fer cl ai m at t he ti m e h e in it ia te d ano nd is ch arg eab il it y cla im un de r § 5 23 (a)( 6) . Thu s, un li ke in Sa

yl or , Max fie ldha d ajud gm en t t ha t es tabl is he d arig htto pa ym en t Although not binding , the re asoningemploy ed by the Ninth Circuit is persuasive. 2 Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981). 9ba se d o n t he da m ag e Ja ni ce d idto hi s p ro pe rty int eres t i n c ol le ct in g o n h is

pe rs on al in

jury j ud gm en t b y

tra ns ferr in g S ho rev ie w. Inth is way , Max fie ld ’s no nd is ch arg eab il it y cla im is m or e li ke th atin a subs eque nt en ba nc cas e fro m th e Nin th Cir cu it , In re Ba mmer , 13 1 F .3d78 8 (9 th Ci r. 19 97 ) ( en ba nc ). In t ha t ca se , Alt a Bamm er fa cedanord er o f res ti tu ti on to co m pe ns at e se ve ral em

be zzl em en t v ic ti m s, i nc lu di ng James Mu rray. Id. at 7 90 . Bamm er fraudul en tl y

tra ns ferr eda m ortg ag e o n h er h om e to he r so n, St ev en , to av oi d p ay in g M urray. Id. Murray sue d i n C al ifo rn iast at e co urt fo r frau du le nt tra ns fer andob ta in eda jud gm en t ag ai ns t Al taan d S te ve n B amm er. Id. at 7 90 -9 1. Init s o rd er, t he st at e co urt em ph as iz edth atth e two ha d a ctua l i nt en t t o d efraud cred it or s, i nc lu di ng Mu rray. Id. Whe n S te ve n B amm er fi le d aba nk rupt cy pe ti ti on , Mu rray sou gh t t o h av e th e fraudul en t t ran sf

er d eb t ex cep te d fr om

di sc ha rg e u nd er § 52 3( a)(6 ). Id . The ba nk rupt cy

co urt fo un d tha t the de btwas d is ch arg eab le , bu t the en ba nc Nin th Ci rcu itrev ers ed . Id. at 7 90 , 79 3. Th e co urt em ph as iz edth atMu rray hadalr ead y ob ta in eda frau du le nttra ns fer ju dg m en t. Fu rth er, “ [j] us t as im po rta nt. . . as th is [fraudul en t tran sf

er] judg m en t, h owe ve r, [were] th e fi nd in gs of t he Supe rio r Co urt in Mu rray’ s ci vi l ca se ag ai ns t St ev en on whi ch th e jud gm en t was ba se d.” Id. at 79 1. Th e fi nd in gs of a ctua l i nt en t, wi th ou t ju stcau se , to in jure Mu rray’ s p ro pe rty 10(h is rig htto res ti tu ti on ), inco nju nc ti on wit h t he frau du le nttra ns fer ju dg m en t, l ed

th e Nin th Cir cu itto co nc lu de th atth e tr an sf er was a wil lfu l an d m al ic io us in jury to Mu rray’ s p ro pe rty. Id. at 7 91 -9 3. Here t oo , th e b an krup tc y

co urt fo un d t ha t J an ic e Je nn in gs kn owi ng ly co ns pi redwit h B ru ce t o t ran sf er Sh or ev ie w wit h t he in te ntto ke ep it s v al ue fro m Max fie ld ’s reach . Bas edon th is fin di ng , justas t he st at e co urt d idin Bammer , th e ba nk rupt cy

co urt awa rd edjud gm en t i n fa vo r of Max fie ldforJan ic e’s frau du le nt tra ns fer. We fin d t he co urt’s re as on in g i n Bammer pe rs ua si ve . Andbe cau se he re Max fie ldob ta in eda frau du le nttra ns fer ju dg m en t, co m pl et e wit h afin di ng th at Ja ni ce i nt en de d t o p rev en t M ax fie ldfro m sat is fy in g h is pe rs on al in jury clai m , we co nc lu de th atJan ic e’s tr an sf er was anin

jury to M ax fie ld ’s pro pe rty. B. W il lfu l an d m al ic io us in jury Ja ni ce ar gu es , in th e al te rn at iv e, th atan y in jury to M ax fie ldor h is pro pe rty was no t wi ll fu l an d m al ic io us . W e h av e h el d t ha t p ro of

of “ wil lfu ln es s” requi res “ ‘a sho win g o f an in te nt io na l o r de li be rat e act , whi ch is no t d on e m erel y in reck le ss di sr eg ardof t he rig ht s o f an ot he r.’” In re Wal ker , 48 F.3d11 61 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ti ng In re Ikn er , 88 3 F .2d98 6, 9 91 (11 th Cir . 19 89 )). “ [A] deb to r is res po ns ib le fora ‘w il lfu l’ in

jury whe n h e o r sh e co m

m it s an in te nt io na l ac t t he pu rp os e o f whi ch is 11to cau se in

jury or whi ch is subs ta nt ia ll y cert ai n t o c au se in

jury.” Id. at 1 16 5; se e al so Ka wa au ha u v . Geig er , 52 3 U.S. 5 7, 6 1- 62 (19 98 ) (h ol di ng th at§ 5 23 (a)( 6) requi res th e act orto in te ndth e in jury, no t ju stth e actth atlea ds to th e in jury). Rec kl es sl y

or n eg li ge nt ly infl ic te d i nju rie s ar e n otex cep te d fr om di sc ha rg e und er § 5 23 (a)( 6) . Ka wa au ha u , 52 3 U.S. at64 .

“ Mal ic io us ” m ean s “ ‘wro ng fu l an d wi th ou t ju stcau se or e xc es si ve ev en in th e ab se nc e o f pe rs on al ha tre d, s pi te or i ll -wil l.’” In re Wal ker , 48 F.3dat 1 16 4 (quo ti ng In re I

kn er , 88 3 F .2dat 9 91 ). To es tabl is h m al ic e, “ a sh owi ng of s pe ci fic in te ntto ha rm

an ot he r is no t n eces sary .” In re I kn er , 88 3 F .2dat 9 91 . Here, t he ev id en ce i n t he reco rdsh owe d t ha t J an ic e tr an sf erre d S ho rev ie w wil lfu ll y an d wi th m al ic e. Sh e kne w th atth e p ur po se of t he tra ns fer was to ke ep Sh or ev ie w ou t o f th e rea ch of c red it or s. Sh e was acu te ly aware of Max fie ld ’s pe rs on al in

jury clai m , bec au se sh e, Bru ce, an d t he ir t ru st , RKB, were n am edas de fen da nt s i n t he su itjus t t hr ee m on th s b efo re t he tra ns fer. J an ic e ad m it te d t he se fact s, d es pi te he r la te r te st im on y to th e co nt rary. Thi s ev id en ce i ll us tra te s t ha t Ja ni ce ac te d wi ll fu ll y

in pre ve nt in g M ax fie ldfro m reac hi ng Sh or ev ie w to sat is fy pa rt o f hi s p ers on al in

jury j ud gm en t. An d s he ha d n o ju stcau se to effe ctth e tra ns fer: sh e kne w Ann a Leah ha d n o c la im to Sh or ev ie w, andsh e kne w Bru ce ha d n o l eg it im at e rea so n t o t ran sf er i t t o h er. Sh e eff

ect edth e tr an sf

er wi th ou t ju st 12cau se , andth eref or e d idso wit h m al ic e.

IV. Bec au se Max fie ldsat is fie d t he ele m en ts of § 52 3( a)(6 ) by sh owi ng th at Ja ni ce wi ll fu ll y

an d m al ic io us ly inju redhi s p ro pe rty, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly co nc lu de d t ha t the frau du le nttra ns fer was no t d is ch arg eab le as p artof t he ba nk rupt cy

pro ceed in g. AFFIRMED.

13