Case Name: In re Raphael LICHTER, Debtor. QUALITY POOLS, Plaintiff, v. Ralph LICHTER, Defendant
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1989-07-27
Citations: 104 B.R. 521
Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 89-40025-COL; Adv. No. 89-4036-COL
Parties: In re Raphael LICHTER, Debtor. QUALITY POOLS, Plaintiff, v. Ralph LICHTER, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 104
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
In re Raphael LICHTER, Debtor. QUALITY POOLS, Plaintiff, v. Ralph LICHTER, Defendant.
Bankruptcy No. 89-40025-COL.
Adv. No. 89-4036-COL.
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division.
July 27, 1989.
James A. Elkins, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for plaintiff.
David A. Clark, Columbus, Ga., for defendant.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN T. LANEY, III, Bankruptcy Judge.
On June 7, 1989, a pre-trial conference was held on Quality Pools' (hereinafter "Plaintiff") complaint to determine dis-chargeability of debt under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. After hearing argument of counsel, the court invited both parties to submit briefs on the issue of whether collateral estoppel would apply to a default judgment in the State Court in a dischargeability action under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. This court, having considered the arguments and briefs of counsel, now renders this Memorandum Opinion.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Debtor in the Municipal Court of Columbus on March 9, 1987. Plaintiff is a creditor of the Debtor, having obtained a judgment against the Debtor on January 12, 1988. The Debtor, Raphael Lichter, also known as Ralph Lichter, filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on January 9, 1989.
Plaintiff contends that the state court default judgment should be given issue preclusion effect in the instant discharge-ability action under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff has cited to this court numerous cases which it alleges support its contention.
The court feels that a fundamental issue has not been addressed by either the Plaintiff or by the Debtor. This issue is the difference in the burden of proof in a dis-chargeability action in the Bankruptcy Court and a civil suit in State Court. In actions under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, the burden of proof is clear and convincing. In re Hunter, 780 F.2d 1577 (11th Cir.1986). However, in a civil suit in the Georgia state court, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof is much greater in the Bankruptcy Court when dis-chargeability actions under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code are involved. Collateral estoppel is held not applicable in cases where the burden of proof under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code is clear and convincing, and the state court judgment against the Debtor was by a preponderance of the evidence. B. Russell, Bankruptcy Evidence Manual § 6(3) (1987). See also In re Billings, 94 B.R. 803 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1989); In re Weitzel, 72 B.R. 253 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1987); In re Wintrow, 57 B.R. 695 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1986); In re D'Annolfo, 54 B.R. 887 (Bankr.D.Mass.1985).
Accordingly, this court holds that the default judgment entered against the Debt- or in the Municipal Court of Columbus, Georgia, will not be given issue preclusion effect under the doctrine of collateral es-toppel in the instant dischargeability action under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.
. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(4), (6) (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(4), (6) (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
.11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(4), (6) (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523 (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523 (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523 (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523 (West 1979 & Supp.1989).