Court Opinion

ID: 9489279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:11:05.766749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:26.411956
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
While I concur in the holding that the debt owed, in this case, is nondischargeable and that the bankruptcy court properly found fraud on the facts before it, I am somewhat troubled by the tone of the opinion which might be misinterpreted as ruling that any person that holds more than one credit card, and makes only minimum payments on each, risks committing fraud.
It is well known that credit card issuers compete for new users and a great deal of the marketing effort encourages customers to transfer credit card balances, usually at very low interest, to a new issuer. It is not *1093at all unlikely for a person of average means to receive new credit cards unsolicited. Even where the invitation requires an application before issuance, the inducements may be too attractive to resist by people who should. Mr. Eashai, an unemployed holder of 26 credit cards, may not fit this profile; nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that a person who genuinely becomes overextended, perhaps because of the availability of too much free and easy credit, risks nondis-chargeability. In short, the credit card issuer is not entirely blameless in this equation. See In re Valdes, 188 B.R. 533 (Bankr. D.Md.1995); In re Davis, 176 B.R. 118 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1994); In re Cacho, 137 B.R. 864 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1991).