Opinion ID: 3053354
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reversible Error by the BAP

Text: [9] Relying on Thiara v. Spycher Bros. (In re Thiara), 285 B.R. 420, 434 (9th Cir.BAP 2002), the BAP, perhaps in an attempt to remedy the Bankruptcy Court’s lack of discussion and findings concerning the “malicious” prong, found that malice could be implied from willfulness. Although there may be some overlap between the test for “willfulness” and the test for “malice,” see Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp. v. Littleton (In re Littleton), 942 F.2d 551, 554 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (“[M]alice may be inferred from the nature of the wrongful act.”), the overlap does not mean that the Bankruptcy Court can ignore entirely the malice inquiry. We require a separate analysis for each of the “willful” and “malicious” prongs. See In re Sicroff, 401 F.3d at 1105 (“We analyze the willful and malicious prongs of the dischargeability test separately.”); In re Su, 290 F.3d at 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting an attempt to conflate the two prongs and requiring a separate analysis as to each); In re Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1207-09 (treating the willful and malicious prongs with separate analyses); In re Littleton, 942 F.2d at 554 (analyzing willfulness and maliciousness separately). The BAP’s conclusion that the Appellants’ actions were malicious under § 523(a)(6) rested entirely on its conclusion that the Appellants’ actions were willful under § 523(a)(6). Because we have concluded that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to willfulness, we similarly reverse the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment with respect to maliciousness. On remand, the IN THE MATTER OF BARBOZA 13429 Bankruptcy Court should conduct a separate inquiry concerning malice. See In re Sicroff, 401 F.3d at 1105 In re Su, 290 F.3d at 1146-47; In re Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1207-09; In re Littleton, 942 F.2d at 554.