Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

JAVIER MORZAN, Main Case No.: 20-18765-LMI

Chapter 7

Debtor.

________________________________________/ Adv. Case No.: _______________

MARCIA T. DUNN, Chapter 7 Trustee 

of the Bankruptcy Estate of JAVIER MORZAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAVIER MORZAN a/k/a Javier Ernesto Morzan 

a/k/a Javier E. Morzan a/k/a Javier Ernesto 

Morzan, Sr.,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DEBTOR’S DISCHARGE

Plaintiff, Marcia T. Dunn, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the above referenced Bankruptcy Estate 

(hereinafter, the “Trustee” or “Plaintiff”), through counsel, sues Debtor/Defendant JAVIER 

MORZAN a/k/a Javier Ernesto Morzan a/k/a Javier E. Morzan a/k/a Javier Ernesto Morzan, Sr.

(hereinafter, the “Debtor” or “Defendant”), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

7001, and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This is an adversary proceeding filed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 

Rule 7001, et seq., to object to the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2) and 

727(a)(4)(A).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) and 1334.

3. This is a core proceeding pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 12

4. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.

THE PARTIES

5. Marcia T. Dunn is the duly appointed Trustee in the underlying Chapter 7 

bankruptcy proceeding and authorized to bring this action under 11 U.S.C. § 727(c)(1). This action 

is brought solely in Ms. Dunn’s capacity as Trustee.

6. Defendant, JAVIER MORZAN, is the Debtor in the underlying Chapter 7 

bankruptcy proceeding and are otherwise sui juris.

BACKGROUND

A. The Debtor’s Bankruptcy Filing

7. On August 14, 2020 (the “Petition Date), Debtor commenced the instant bankruptcy 

case through counsel with the filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 7, Title 11 of the United 

States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) styled In re Javier Morzan, Case No. 20-18765-LMI (the 

“Main Case”). 

8. The Debtor’s First Meeting of Creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341 (the “First 

Meeting”) was held and concluded on September 15, 2020.

B. The Debtor’s Bankruptcy Schedules

9. The Debtor filed his initial schedules with the filing of his voluntary Petition, 

including all Schedules and his Statement of Financial Affairs. The Debtor signed all under oath 

and under penalty of perjury.

10. The Debtor did not make any amendments to his Schedules or Statement of 

Financial Affairs.

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 12
Page 3 of 12

11. The Debtor schedules $224,526.00 in assets, consisting of real property 

(homestead) valued at $195,000.00 and personal property including businesses valued at 

$29,526.00, and schedules $216,532.43 in liabilities [Main Case, D.E. 1].1

12. Among other notable deficiencies, the Debtor does not schedule ownership of 

business interest, Chuncho Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC, created four (4) months pre-Petition; the 

Debtor does not schedule transfers to this entity from existing scheduled entities, and transfers to 

an undisclosed bank account held at ScotiaBank in Peru; and the Debtor does not schedule his 

interest in an undisclosed account gambling or gaming account held with Xpress Bet with a prePetition value of approximately $8,000.00.

13. In her initial case review, the Trustee uncovered these undisclosed items in bank 

statements produced by the Debtor in advance of his First Meeting.

C. The Debtor’s 2004 Examination and Subsequent Production 

14. On September 30, 2020, the Trustee filed and served a Notice of Rule 2004 

Examination Duces Tecum of Debtor (the “Notice”) [Main Case, D.E. 21], setting the Debtor’s 

examination for December 1, 2020, and requesting information and documentation from the 

Debtor to be produced prior to the examination (the “Document Request”). 

15. The Document Request was crafted from the Debtor’s Schedules and Statements, 

documents produced by the Debtor in advance of his First Meeting, testimony by the Debtor at his 

First Meeting, and independent research.

16. On October 19, 2020, with the coordination of Debtor’s then-counsel, the Trustee 

filed and served a Re-Notice of Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum of Debtor (the “Re-Notice”) 

1 On December 28, 2020, the Trustee’s Notice of Abandonment was filed with respect to a 

vehicle listed by the Debtor under Schedule A/B with a value of $19,975.00 thereby reducing the 

scheduled value of personal property to $9,551.00 [Main Case, D.E. 47].

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 12
Page 4 of 12

[Main Case, D.E. 27], resetting the Debtor’s examination for December 16, 2020, and requesting 

information and documentation from the Debtor to be produced prior to the examination. 

17. On December 15, 2020, the Trustee cancelled the Debtor’s examination 

coordinated for December 16, 2020, because of the pending hearing of Debtor’s Counsel’s Motion 

to Withdraw [Main Case, D.E. 31] filed November 9, 2020, and the deficient document production 

by the Debtor under the Re-Notice.

18. The Debtor has failed substantially in providing various documents to the Trustee

under the Re-Notice, most particularly business records and transactional records related to the 

undisclosed assets, and on January 15, 2021, the Trustee filed and served her Motion to Compel 

Production of Documents from the Debtor, and for Sanctions (the “Motion”) [Main Case, D.E. 

51], which was brought before the Court for hearing on February 8, 2021 [Main Case, D.E. 52].

19. The Court heard argument of counsel and the Debtor (appearing pro se and with a 

language interpreter) at the hearing of the Motion. On February 9, 2021, the Court’s Order on 

Trustee’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from the Debtor, and for Sanctions (the 

“Order”) [Main Case, D.E. 55] was entered and the Motion was granted. Further, the Order 

instructed the Debtor to respond to the Trustee’s Re-Notice within 14 days of the date of the 

hearing.

20. Further, under Paragraph 3 of the Order:

If the requested documents and information herein are not available, the Debtor 

shall provide (1) written explanation to the Trustee as to why the documents and 

information are not available, (2) description of efforts the Debtor has taken to 

obtain the requested documents and information herein, and (3) proof of the efforts 

the Debtor has taken to obtain the requested documents and information herein. 

21. Since the entry of the Order, undersigned counsel’s office has been in 

communication with the Debtor seeking for his compliance with the terms of the Order, to no avail.

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 12
Page 5 of 12

22. On April 16, 2021, the Trustee filed her Motion to Compel Turnover (Xpress Bet 

Account Balances, Scotiabank Peru Account Balances and Statements) (the “Second Motion”) 

[Main Case, D.E. 63]. The Second Motion is set for hearing on May 10, 2021 [Main Case, D.E. 

64].

23. Throughout this case, the Debtor has been evasive and has failed to provide 

adequate explanation regarding his financial affairs. The Trustee has uncovered numerous false 

oaths, omissions, material misstatements, coupled with the Debtor’s repeated and pervasive 

failures to adequately explain the loss of assets and deficiency of assets to meet his liabilities. The 

Debtor has also failed substantially in providing various documents to the Trustee, most 

particularly business records and transactional records. 

24. While the Trustee continues her investigation, she has identified several substantial 

issues involving the Debtor’s pre- and post-Petition financial affairs that were not accurately 

disclosed, that were concealed, and/or inadequately explained by the Debtor, including but not 

limited to the below:

The Debtor’s Business Interests and Subsequent Transfers/Continuations

25. As of the Petition Date, the Debtor scheduled his interest in:

a. Caribbean Business, Inc. d/b/a Only Way Vacations (EIN 27-05833933) 

(the Debtor failed to disclose the DBA), formed July 2009 and scheduled as 

“will be dissolved”; and

b. Whoosh Talk, LLC (EIN 82-1404629), formed in May 2017 and scheduled as 

“will be dissolved.”

26. A review of Debtor’s bank statements and Sunbiz.org show that both entities filed 

annual corporate reports with the Florida Secretary of State on June 30, 2020.

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 12

27. At his First Meeting, the Debtor testified that he owned no other businesses, and 

that the scheduled businesses had no employees, and that the scheduled businesses had not 

operated since at least March 2020 due to COVID-19.

28. In reviewing the Wells Fargo bank statements produced by the Debtor in advance 

of the First Meeting it appears that through Whoosh Talk, LLC, on May 14, 2020, the Debtor 

obtained $4,274.00 under the PPP, and on May 15, 2020, transferred $4,200.00 to an undisclosed 

Wells Fargo bank account in the name of Chuncho Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC. The Debtor failed 

to disclose his ownership of Chuncho Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC, formed April 16, 2020. (The 

Debtor also used the Caribbean business bank account to make pre-Petition transfers to Chuncho 

Bravo.) 

29. In reviewing a Wells Fargo bank statement produced by Debtor pursuant to the ReNotice, on April 13, 2020, the Debtor through Caribbean Business, Inc., obtained $10,000.00 from 

the U.S. Small Business Administration disaster loan program (the “SBA”). The Debtor 

immediately transferred $2,500.00 to an undisclosed personal account at ScotiaBank Peru, and 

immediately transferred $7,500.00 to the undisclosed Wells Fargo bank account in the name of 

Chuncho Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC. The Debtor failed to disclose his ownership of Chuncho 

Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC formed April 16, 2020. 

30. The Debtor’s businesses operate out of his home.

31. The Debtor scheduled his employment as a part-time horse trainer at Gulfstream 

Park Racing and Casino for approximately one (1) month.

32. The Trustee’s investigation of social media and the Internet indicates that the 

Debtor is a horse trainer through Chuncho Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC working out of Gulfstream 

Park Racing and Casino, and the Florida Department of Professional Regulation indicates the 

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 6 of 12
Page 7 of 12

Debtor, using the name Javier E. Morzan, Sr., is licensed in pari-mutuel wagering as an individual 

as of April 20, 2020.

33. The Debtor produced no records regarding the applications for SBA and PPP funds; 

however, the Debtor did produce documentation indicating requests for PPP and SBA monies were 

denied while never acknowledging a subsequent successful application and receipt of PPP funds; 

this is misleading.

34. The Debtor’s primary business seems to be Chuncho Bravo Stable & Farm, LLC; 

however, he also earns a living as an Uber or Lyft driver and collects or collected unemployment 

benefits as evidenced in his 2019 tax return and bank statements. 

35. On information and belief, the Trustee asserts that the Debtor has fraudulently 

transferred the interests of his disclosed business interests and/or continues to own and operate his 

disclosed businesses to his undisclosed business and undisclosed bank account in Peru in order to 

hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.

36. The Debtor has engaged in pattern of cavalier disregard for truthful and accurate 

disclosures of assets, claims, and sources of recovery for the Estate; has made extensive false oaths, 

has systematically transferred and concealed assets from creditors and the Estate, among other 

blatant violations of 11 U.S.C. § 727.

Reservation of Rights

37. The Trustee is an after-the-fact appointed fiduciary. 

38. The Trustee reserves the right to amend, modify and/or supplement these and other 

allegations contained in this Complaint, and causes of action against the Debtor/Defendant or 

persons or parties affiliated with the Debtor/Defendant, based on her further investigation. 

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12

COUNT I

The Debtor Should Not be Granted a Discharge 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)

39. The Plaintiff/Trustee adopts, realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1 through 38 above.

40. Section 727(a)(2) of the United States Bankruptcy Code provides the following 

exception to the general discharge provisions:

(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—

(2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a 

creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property 

under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or 

concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, 

mutilated, or concealed—

(A) property of the debtor, within one year before the 

date of the filing of the petition; or

(B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing 

of the petition;

11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2). 

41. Based on the Debtor’s actions described above, the Trustee believes and alleges 

that the Debtor has, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the Estate, 

transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or have permitted to be transferred, 

removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, property of the Debtor, within one (1) year before 

the date of the filing of the petition and/or property of the Estate, after the date of the filing of the 

Petition. 

42. As a result of the Debtor’s transfers, concealments referenced herein, certain assets 

may now be unreachable by the creditors of the Debtor or the bankruptcy estate. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee respectfully requests the 

Court deny the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), and for such other relief as 

is just and proper under the circumstances.

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 8 of 12
Page 9 of 12

COUNT II

The Debtor Should Not be Granted a Discharge 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3)

43. The Plaintiff/Trustee adopts, realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1 through 38 above.

44. Section 727(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the following exception to the 

general discharge provisions:

(a)The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—

(3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, 

or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, 

including books, documents, records, and papers, from 

which the debtor’s financial condition or business 

transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure 

to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case;

11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3).

45. The purpose of § 727(a)(3) is to make full financial disclosure a condition precedent 

to the court’s grant of discharge, see Broad Nat. Bank v. Kadison, 26 B.R. 1015 (D.N.J.1983), and 

to insure that the trustee and creditors are supplied with dependable information on which they can 

rely in tracing the debtor’s financial history. See Matter of Esposito, 44 B.R. 817 

(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984).

46. The Debtor on several occasions failed to produce critical books, records, 

documents and other information related to his financial affairs, let alone produce sufficient 

records that comport with the duty required of a Debtor in such circumstances to overcome an 

objection to discharge under (a)(3). See e.g. In re Hyder, 38 B.R. 467 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984).

47. Debtor’s repeated concealment, destruction, and/or failure to keep or preserve 

records materially impaired the Trustee’s ability to administer the estate, to the detriment of the 

estate and its creditors. 

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12

48. The Debtor could not provide complete, let alone accurate information regarding 

bank accounts, corporate documents, business interests, and financial records, among others. 

49. Based on the Debtor’s actions described above, the Trustee believes and alleges 

that the Debtor has failed to keep or preserve books and records from which his financial condition 

may be ascertained, or the Debtor has concealed or destroyed any records that may have existed.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee respectfully requests the 

Court deny the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3), and for such other relief as 

is just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT III

The Debtor Should Not be Granted a Discharge 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A)

50. The Plaintiff/Trustee adopts, realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1 through 38 above.

51. Section 727(a)(4)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the following exception to 

the general discharge provisions:

(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—

(4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in 

connection with the case—

(A) made a false oath or account; or

11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). 

52. The Debtor has, on several occasions, made false statements under oath concerning 

his assets. Such statements have been made on his Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs 

and at the First Meeting.

53. The Debtor’s has also deliberately omitted information connected to the Main Case, 

which warrants denial of a discharge. Deliberate omissions by the Debtor may also result in the 

denial of a discharge. In re Chalik, 748 F.2d 616, 618 (11th Cir. 1984).

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 10 of 12
Page 11 of 12

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee respectfully requests the 

Court deny the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3), and for such other relief as 

is just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT IV

The Debtor Should Not be Granted a Discharge 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(D)

54. The Plaintiff/Trustee adopts, realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1 through 38 above.

55. Section 727(a)(4)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the following exception to 

the general discharge provisions:

(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—

(4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in 

connection with the case—

(D) withheld from an officer of the estate entitled to 

possession under this title, any recorded information, 

including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to 

the debtor’s property or financial affairs;

11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(D).

56. Based on the Debtor’s actions described above, the Trustee believes and alleges 

that the Debtor knowingly and fraudulently withheld from the Trustee and her professionals certain 

recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to the Debtor’s 

property and/or financial affairs.

57. The information and documentation sought by the Trustee is property of the Estate 

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541, and subject to turnover pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542.

58. The Debtor’s withholding of these records materially impaired the Trustee’s ability 

to administer the estate, to the detriment of the estate and its creditors. 

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee respectfully requests the 

Court deny the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(D), and for such other relief 

as is just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: April 30, 2021. Respectfully submitted,

DUNN LAW, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Marcia T. Dunn, as Chapter 

7 Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Javier Morzan

66 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33130

Tel: 786-433-3866

Fax: 786-260-0269

Email: michael.dunn@dunnlawpa.com

By: /s/ Michael P. Dunn, Esq.

Michael P. Dunn, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 100705

Case 20-18765-LMI Doc 66 Filed 04/30/21 Page 12 of 12