Court Opinion

ID: 9651120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:08:05.82013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:30.324837
License: Public Domain

ROSENTHAL, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge
(dissenting).
I would affirm the Bankruptcy Court on all matters raised in this appeal.
I. Bankruptcy Court’s Jurisdiction To Enter Money Judgment
I respectfully disagree with the majority-
I see no basis to deviate from the unanimous Circuit law which holds that there is *37federal bankruptcy jurisdiction to liquidate and enter a money judgment on a non-dischargeable debt. Although I believe in most cases this approach effects the most efficient use of judicial and litigant resources, by only requiring one trial rather than two, there are situations where trying the money or damages portion would not be economical (such as complicated contractual or financial cases or even some student loan cases, civil rights cases, etc.) and thus I believe discretion should remain with the trial court.
To have jurisdiction turn on when the “events” took place or whether there will be a “distribution,” as the majority suggests, does not serve the system, the parties or the Court. First, most “events” leading to non-dischargeability occur pre-petition. Second, considering the Code’s time requirements for filing non-discharge-ability complaints, the trial judge will often be forced to use a “ouji” board at the beginning of a case to determine whether a distribution will take place and thus, under the majority’s proposed rule, whether the Court has jurisdiction. Twenty/twenty hindsight does not provide a fair and consistent measure of a court’s jurisdiction.
II. Damages
I would find that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the amount of damages, and further find that the bankruptcy court was not clearly erroneous in its findings for the reasons set forth in Section III of the majority opinion.
III. Non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A)
I agree with the majority on this point.