Opinion ID: 2709058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross‐Motions for Sanctions

Text: Finally, we turn to the parties’ cross‐motions for sanc‐ tions. We regard an appeal as frivolous “when the result is foreordained by the lack of substance to the appellant’s ar‐ gument.” Matter of Generes, 69 F.3d 821, 828 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted). It is important to keep the bar high, so that parties will not be dissuaded from bringing ar‐ guments that ultimately may fail, but that are fair grounds for application or extension of the law. With that in mind, we see no ground for sanctions against either party here. This case involves the interplay of some knotty areas of law, including issue preclusion and bankruptcy. Our own analysis of the preclusion question differs from that of both courts below. Furthermore, as we noted, decisions have been “all over the lot” with respect to the definition of willful and malicious injury for purposes of § 523(a)(6). The result here was not foreordained, and so there is no reason to sanction First Weber for filing the appeal. Nor do we think Horsfall should be sanctioned, since he was entitled to rely on the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and the distinctions be‐ tween the earlier state proceeding and the present case. We take this opportunity to caution the parties and the bar that they should not lightly label their opponents’ argu‐ ments as frivolous. As our sister circuit said recently: There are good reasons not to call an oppo‐ nent’s arguments “ridiculous” … . The reasons include civility; the near‐certainty that over‐ 18 No. 13‐1026 statement will only push the reader away …; and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions. Bennett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 584, 584–85 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). We think the par‐ ties in this case would have done well to follow this advice.