Intentional torts generally require that the actor intend the consequences of an act, not simply the act itself. Under the restatement approach, the debtor must desire to cause the consequences of his act, or believe that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. The Ninth Circuit follows the implied malice line, i.e. , malice can be established from the nature of the conduct. It seems clear that most, if not all, intentional torts, as long as the debtor intended to cause the injury would qualify. In most situations, the creditor will have obtained a judgment against the debtor in a state court proceeding.
Collateral estoppel applies in bankruptcy nondischargeability actions.
The party seeking to assert collateral estoppel has the burden of proving all the requisites for its application. To sustain this burden, a party must introduce a record sufficient to reveal the controlling facts and pinpoint the exact issues litigated in the prior action. Any reasonable doubt as to what was decided by a prior judgment should be resolved against allowing the collateral estoppel effect. These must clearly establish a finding that the debtor acted with the intent necessary to satisfy the Geiger test. Just holding up the judgment does not mean you win.