Court Opinion

ID: 9686030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:17:36.960456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:13.032103
License: Public Domain

JURY, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring:
I agree that with the majority that the debt at issue is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6), and I do not quibble with its well-reasoned analysis. However, I write separately because I believe our conclusion is not only consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 118 S.Ct. 1212, 140 L.Ed.2d 341 (1998) but is compelled by it. Although there was an underlying monetary judgment in Cohen, that factual circumstance did not impact the Supreme Court’s statutory analysis, nor should the lack of a damages judgment here impact ours.
Section 523(a)(6) prevents discharge of “any debt for a willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity .... ” § 523(a)(6). The Cohen court construed the phrase “debt for” used throughout the various subsections of § 523 to mean “debt as a result of,” “debt with respect to,” “debt by reason of,” and the like, “connoting broadly any liability arising from the specified object....” Id. at 220, 118 S.Ct. 1212. The Supreme Court did not write that monetary damages were necessary to its decision.
Here, the $11,573 debt at issue unquestionably is “as a result of’, “with respect to” and “by reason of’ debtor’s violation of the injunction and court order. But for debtor’s willful and malicious behavior, no attorneys fees and costs would have been incurred nor awarded by statute. Just as the attorneys fees found nondischargeable in Cohen were linked to an underlying judgment for damages, the attorneys fees and costs here are linked to an underlying judgment for injunctive relief. No distinction exists.
The plain meaning of § 523(a)(6) as construed by the Cohen court compels our conclusion that the fees and costs are non-dischargeable.