Court Opinion

ID: 9688212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:39:33.77132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:36.588965
License: Public Domain

MICHAEL, Bankruptcy Judge,
Concurring.
Judges sitting on a three-judge panel should, as a matter of course, strive for open-minded unanimity. In this case, however, I must to a degree respectfully disagree with my colleagues. My objection is not with the result, with which I concur, but with the analysis the majority uses to reach it.
For almost 25 years courts have been called upon by litigants to address the issue raised in this appeal; namely, what constitutes a “statement regarding financial condition” for purposes of § 523(a).1 Courts have adopted two separate views, with separate justifications for each view. In Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. Chivers (In re Chivers),2 the court undertook a detailed analysis of the two views and determined that the “strict interpretation” of the phrase “statement of financial condition” was appropriate. The Chivers court found that:
the better approach is the strict interpretation of § 523(a)(2)(B) that requires a false written statement to describe the debtor’s net worth, overall financial health, or ability to genérate income. It is the most consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is consistent with the history of the reason for the creation of the statute, it strictly construes § 523(a)(2)(B) against the creditor and liberally in favor of the debtor, and it resolves the conflict raised in the present case in a way that reconciles §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) without impairing their effectiveness.3
I find this analysis persuasive and would affirm the ruling of the lower court for the reasons outlined in Chivers.
Instead of addressing this reasoning, the majority has chosen to focus on Bellco First Federal Credit Union v. Kaspar (In re Kaspar).4 Nothing in Bélico dealt with the definition of what constituted a statement regarding financial condition; instead, the decision focused upon whether a statement regarding a debtor’s financial condition should be considered oral or written. The facts in Bélico are so dissimilar, in my opinion, as to preclude, its applicability to the present case. I respectfully decline to join in the majority’s analysis in this regard.
I also cannot join the majority in its use of legislative history to support its decision. As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, courts interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code must first look to the plain language of the statute.5 A court should only consider al*698ternative interpretations when the literal application of the statute would produce absurd results6 or if the literal application produces a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of the statute’s drafters.7 In this instance, the majority has failed to articulate why the cited legislative history is relevant. Even if one assumed that § 523(a)(2)(A) was ambiguous or produced an absurd result, previous courts have generally agreed that the section’s legislative history provides little guidance.8
I am equally troubled by the majority’s reliance upon legislative history regarding the predecessor to § 523(a)(2)(A) under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. If the legislative history of § 523(a)(2)(A) has little bearing on it meaning, it is hard for me to grasp the relevance of previous legislative history. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court has observed, it is the intent of the Congress that passed the statute, and not that of previous Congresses, that controls.9 For that reason, I cannot find comfort in legislative history that did not even contemplate the existence of the statute at issue.
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the judgment.

. See generally Schneiderman v. Bogdanovich (In re Bogdanovich), 292 F.3d 104, 112-13 (2d Cir.2002) (citing numerous cases).

. 275 B.R. 606, 614-16 (Bankr.D.Utah 2002).

. Id. at 615-16.

. 125 F.3d 1358 (10th Cir.1997).

. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989).

. Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 460, 12 S.Ct 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892).

. Ron Pair, 489 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026.

. See, e.g., Armbrustmacher v. Redburn (In re Redburn), 202 B.R. 917, 926-27 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.1996).

. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 354 n. 39, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977).