Court Opinion

ID: 9952944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 00:00:42.9028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:44.498470
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10698           Document: 57-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/20/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                   March 20, 2024
                                    No. 23-10698                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                           Clerk

In the Matter of Darren Scott Matloff

                                                                                   Debtor,

Triumphant Gold Limited,

                                                                             Appellant,

                                         versus

Darren Scott Matloff,

                                                                                  Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CV-274
                  ______________________________

Before Stewart, Clement, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Triumphant Gold Limited (TGL), a creditor, opposed the discharge
of certain debts before a U.S. bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court
nonetheless granted discharge, and TGL appealed—first to the district

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-10698          Document: 57-1        Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                     No. 23-10698

court, which affirmed, and then to us. Because the district court applied the
wrong standard of review, we VACATE and REMAND.
        Darren Matloff is the founder and sole owner of Rooftop, a family of
companies that manufactured and distributed leisure-use drones. To finance
its projects, Rooftop, through Matloff, sought financing from TGL. Rooftop
and TGL executed two core loan agreements—one in 2016 and one in 2017.
Relevant here is the 2017 agreement, which the parties revised and extended
via numerous side letters. Through the agreement and its side letters, and in
exchange for an extension of credit, Matloff agreed, in relevant part, (1) to
reclassify as a loan from TGL a “CEO Bonus” from 2016, and (2) to collect
purchase-order proceeds or accounts receivable and deposit those funds into
bank accounts pledged as collateral to TGL.
            In February 2018, Rooftop defaulted on its debt, and in 2019, both
Matloff and Rooftop declared bankruptcy. Matloff never repaid the supposed
bonus from 2016, however, and ceased depositing funds into the TGL-
pledged accounts. Matloff and Rooftop sought discharge in U.S. bankruptcy
court. TGL opposed discharge, invoking Sections 523 and 727 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, which govern “exceptions to discharge” and
“discharge,” respectively. 11 U.S.C. §§ 523, 727. TGL asserted both
liquidated claims and unliquidated claims against Matloff and Rooftop.1 After
holding a trial, the bankruptcy court issued a 139-page opinion rejecting
TGL’s objections to discharge. TGL appealed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, certifying four issues for review:
        1. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that
           [Matloff]’s debt was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.
           § 523(a)(6) because the amounts due did not arise from a
        _____________________
        1
         A liquidated claim in bankruptcy refers to a claim the amount of which is known,
whereas an unliquidated claim refers to a sum that is not yet estimated.

                                           2
Case: 23-10698         Document: 57-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                   No. 23-10698

           willful and malicious injury inflicted through [Matloff]’s
           breach of contract;
       2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that
          [Matloff]’s debt owed through his personal guarantee of a
          loan made by [TGL] was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.
          § 523(a)(2)(A) because the guaranty was based on
          [Matloff]’s alleged false representation of his intent to
          repay;
       3. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that
          [Matloff] should not be denied discharge under 11 U.S.C.
          §§ 727(a)(3) & 727(a)(7) because of his alleged failure to
          properly preserve financial records; and
       4. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that
          [Matloff] should not be denied discharge under 11 U.S.C.
          §§ 727(a)(2)(A) & (a)(7) when he allegedly transferred or
          permitted his companies to transfer property with the
          intent to hinder, delay, or defraud [TGL].
       In a two-paragraph discussion section spanning less than a single page,
the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s opinion, citing only the
high level of deference owed to bankruptcy courts’ factual determinations. In
particular, the district court held that “[a]ll four issues certified for review by
the District Court are factual inquiries.” It explained that “[TGL] makes no
contention that [Matloff] was improperly awarded discharge because of a
misrepresentation of the law, but only because the court applied the law to
improperly drawn factual conclusions.”
       By congressional design, federal district courts serve as the first level
of appellate review in the U.S. bankruptcy system. See generally 28 U.S.C.
§ 158; see also River Prod. Co. v. Webb (In re Topco, Inc.), 894 F.2d 727, 734
(5th Cir. 1990) (“Section 158(c) creates an appellate structure for appeals
from bankruptcy courts to district courts that parallels the appellate structure
for appeals from district courts to courts of appeals.”). Where a district court

                                        3
Case: 23-10698        Document: 57-1       Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                  No. 23-10698

affirms a bankruptcy court’s decision, we “review [the] district court’s
affirmance . . . by applying the same standard of review to the bankruptcy
court decision that the district court applied.” Barner v. Saxon Mortg. Servs.,
Inc. (In re Barner), 597 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 2010). Whereas a bankruptcy
court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, its conclusions of law and
mixed questions of law and fact are both reviewed de novo. Tummel & Caroll
v. Quinlivan (In re Quinlivan), 434 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2005).
       Because the questions that TGL certified for appellate review contain
issues of law as well as issues of fact, the district court erred in applying a
blanket clear-error standard. Specifically, all four questions certified for
appellate review ask whether discharge of Matloff’s debt was proper—
whether under Section 523 or Section 727 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We
have previously held that “the decision to discharge . . . debts represents a
conclusion regarding the legal effect of the bankruptcy court’s factual
findings as to [the debtor’s] circumstances.” U.S. Dep’t of Educ. v. Gerhardt
(In re Gerhardt), 348 F.3d 89, 91 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, discharge decisions—
whether the case turns on Section 523 or 727—are legal determinations
subject to de novo review on appeal. Id.; see also Thomas v. Dep’t of Educ. (In
re Thomas), 931 F.3d 449, 451–52 (5th Cir. 2019) (entitlement to discharge
that turns on Section 523 is a question of law subject to de novo review);
Williams v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Loc. 520 (In re Williams), 337 F.3d 504,
508 (5th Cir. 2003) (same); Buescher v. First United Bank & Tr. (In re
Buescher), 783 F.3d 302, 308 (5th Cir. 2015) (entitlement to discharge that
turns on Section 727 is a question of law subject to de novo review); Educ.
Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Young, 376 B.R. 795, 799 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (same).
       Because the district court erroneously applied a clear-error standard
to the entire case on appeal, we VACATE and REMAND for the district
court to resolve the above-certified questions under the applicable standard
of review.

                                       4