Opinion ID: 6931628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity Of Denial Of Discharge

Text: Coggin next complains that the court erred in denying his discharge under section 727. 10 The bankruptcy court denied Coggin’s discharge on two bases. First, it found that certain statements or omissions Coggin made constituted knowingly and fraudulently made false oaths under section 727(a)(4)(A). Secondly, it held that the transfer of $13,000 to his son, Tommy, constituted a transfer of property of the debtor with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor, in violation of section 727(a)(2)(A). Coggin challenges both of these determinations. The bankruptcy court held that Cog-gin should be denied a discharge under section 727(a)(2)(A). Section 727(a) provides in pertinent part: (a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless— [[Image here]] (2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed— (A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition .... 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) (emphasis added). In this respect, the court found as follows: Coggin converted various assets to cash in February and March, 1989 and then transferred Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000) in cash to his son, Tommy. It is clear from the testimony that the transfer of such sum was to pay future child support obligations and was to avoid the claims of his ex-wife. Such transfer was with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his Creditors, including his ex-wife, and constitutes a violation of § 727(a)(2)(A), Bankruptcy Code. [[Image here]] The transfer of the Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000) from Coggin to Tommy was made with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Phyllis Coggin and the other Creditors of the Debtor. The transfer was made while the Debtor was insolvent and while there were many existing Creditors. Pursuant to Section 502(b)(5), Bankruptcy Code, Tommy would not be able to have any claim with the estate in that, even though the obligation of Coggin to pay child support would not be dis-chargeable through his bankruptcy, [sic] Only a pre-petition obligation for support could be considered a Claim in the Estate. Congress clearly intended that post-petition support obligations were to be paid out of the Debtor’s post-petition income, and not from property of the Estate. The overall plan and concept of bankruptcy, in this regard, is that the assets of the Estate are to be used only to pay the legitimate Claims of the Creditors in existence as of the filing of the Petition. The future support owed to Tommy was not a matured debt and, thus, Section 502(b)(5) would prevent the payment of such Claim from the assets of the estate. For this reason, the Debtor could not be permitted to pay such support from those assets before the filing of his Petition. ... The Court is convinced that the transfer of the Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000) by Coggin to Tommy was a transfer made within one year before the filing of the Petition and was made with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Phyllis Coggin or the other Creditors of the Debtor. Bankruptcy Court Memorandum of Decision at 9,11-12 (citation omitted). The bankruptcy court’s finding that the transfer in question was made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud is a question of fact which we will disturb only if it is clearly erroneous. Williamson v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir.1987). The bankruptcy court, after a trial on the merits of this action, determined that Coggin made the transfer here with actual intent and in violation of section 727(a)(2)(A). Finding ample evidence in the record to support this conclusion, we find no clear error in the court’s decision. A denial of discharge under section 727(a) is total, causing all creditors to continue to have a post-petition claim against the debtor and his present and future assets. As the denial under any one of the subsections of section 727(a) yields the same result, only one of the bankruptcy court’s bases for denial need be upheld. We therefore need not address the court’s finding of nondischarge-ability under section 727(a)(4)(A). We hold that the bankruptcy court properly denied Coggin’s discharge under section 727(a)(2)(A) for making a transfer to his son with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor.