1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. LAUDERSALE DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Case No. 20-22409-PDR

DARD DEFRAND Chapter 13 

Debtor 

_______________________________/ 

NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT 

RECOVERY, INC.

Plaintiff, 

 v. Adv. Proc. No.: 21-01047-PDR 

DARD DEFRAND, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DARD DEFRAND (“Defendant” or “Debtor”), by and through his undersigned 

counsel, hereby answers the Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Debt dated 

February 11, 2021 (the “Complaint”) of NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC. 

(the “Plaintiff”), as follows - to the extent any allegation of the following allegations is not

specifically admitted it is denied:

JURISDICTION

1. Admit.

2. Admit.

3. Admit.

OVERVIEW

4. Defendant refers to the referenced Exhibit for a full and complete

statement of its contents.

5. Defendant refers to the referenced Exhibit for a full and complete

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 1 of 8
2

statement of its contents.

6. Defendant refers to the referenced Exhibit for a full and complete

statement of its contents.

Procedural Background of Judgment

7. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

8. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

9. Defendant admits that he received more money than he invested in 

ZeekRewards but Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

10. Deny.

11. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

12. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

13. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

14. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

15. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

16. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 2 of 8
3

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

17. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

18. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

COUNT I: Relief Under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A)

19. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 18 as

though fully stated herein.

20. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

21. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

22. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

23. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

24. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

25. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

26. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

27. Deny.

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 3 of 8
4

28. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

29. Deny.

30. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

31. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

32. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

33. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegations of this paragraph.

34. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

35. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

36. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

37. Deny.

38. Deny.

39. Deny.

40. This paragraph contains purported conclusions of law to which no

response is required.

41. Deny.

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 4 of 8
5

42. Deny.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

By way of Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, Defendant alleges as to the following: 

First Affirmative Defense

The Defendant was a good faith transferee of any alleged fraudulent transfer. 

Defendant did not know that ZeekRewards was a fraudulent scheme. Defendant did not 

personally know the organizers of the scheme. Defendant did not create the scheme. 

Defendant’s connection to the scheme was limited to that of an investor. Defendant 

believed the funds he received from ZeekRewards were returns on his investment.

Second Affirmative Defense

The Defendant provided reasonable equivalent value in exchange for any alleged 

fraudulent transfer. Defendant invested cash of approximately $1,000.00 into 

ZeekRewards and received cash of approximately $3,000.00 from ZeekRewards. The 

net amount Defendant received from ZeekRewards was approximately $2,000.00, and 

not $24,816.57 as alleged in the complaint.

Third Affirmative Defense

The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff 

relies mainly on Husky International Electronics, Inc. v.Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581 (2016).1 

1

In Husky, Husky International Electronics, Inc. sold products to Chrysalis Manufacturing Corp., but Chrysalis

did not pay Husky for the products. Daniel Lee Ritz, Jr., a director and owner of at least 30% of Chrysalis's common 

stock, depleted Chrysalis of assets (that could have been used to pay the debt to Husky) by transferring large sums 

of money to other entities Mr. Ritz controlled. Husky then sued Mr. Ritz under a Texas law that allows creditors to 

hold shareholders liable for corporate debts. Mr. Ritz subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Husky sought a 

determination that its claim against Mr. Ritz was not dischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 5 of 8
6

Husky stands for the narrow proposition that a material misrepresentation by a debtor is 

not required to support a claim of actual fraud. Husky did not, however, eliminate the 

requirement that the debt itself be “obtained by” actual fraud committed by a debtor. 

Defendant committed no actual fraud. Defendant was the mere recipient of an 

alleged fraudulent transfer. He did not create the scheme. Defendant did not know that 

ZeekRewards was a fraudulent scheme. Defendant did not personally know the 

organizers of the scheme. Defendant’s connection to the scheme was limited to that of 

an investor. He was a mere participant like over 700,000 other people. He did not initiate 

any transfers with the intent to hinder delay or defraud. The Defendant is simply a good 

faith transferee who invested about $1,000 and received a net gain of approximated 

$2,000 in a scheme that was not his making. Defendant believed the funds he received 

from ZeekRewards were returns on his investment. He is just no Mr. Ritz in Husky. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense

The underlying judgment is void since the Defendant was not provided adequate 

due process regarding the prosecution and entry of a judgment against him. Defendant

was not aware of the default money judgment until he was contacted by Plaintiff in the 

latter part of 2020.

Reservation of Rights

Defendants reserve the right to assert or amend this answer, any defenses and 

or counter-claims which may become known or ripe during the pendency of this action. 

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 6 of 8
7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests entry of judgment in Defendant’s favor 

and against the Plaintiff: 

A. Dismissing the Complaint with prejudice,

B. To the extent permitted, setting the amount owed by the Debtor 

Defendant to the Plaintiff, if any, accordingly,

C. Awarding to Defendant his costs, including to the extent permitted, his 

reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

D. For such other and further relief as the Court determines to be just and 

equitable under the circumstances.

KIEM LAW, PLLC

Attorney for Defendant

8461 Lake Worth Road, Suite 114

Lake Worth, Florida 33467 

Telephone: 561-600-0406

Facsimile: 561-763-7355

Email: tarek@kiemlaw.com

 By: /s/ Tarek K. Kiem

Tarek K. Kiem

Florida Bar No 0637041

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by 

Notice of Electronic Filing via CM/ECF to all parties registered to receive such notice in 

this case on May 29, 2021 and as reflected below:

Martin L Sandler, Esq on behalf of Plaintiff Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.

martin@sandler-sandler.com

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 7 of 8
8

By: /s/ Tarek K. Kiem

Tarek K. Kiem

Florida Bar No 0637041

Dated: May 29, 2021

Case 21-01047-PDR Doc 26 Filed 05/29/21 Page 8 of 8