Court Opinion

ID: 9651787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:47:05.575258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:40.285183
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 28, 1995
THIS is a Chapter 7 liquidation case and the matter under consideration is a Motion for Rehearing filed by the three Plaintiffs in the above-captioned adversary proceedings. Each of the three adversary proceedings sought a determination as to whether the debts due by Wallace Hinshaw (Debtor) to Barnett Bank, American Express Centurion Bank and American Express, Optima Card Division (Plaintiffs) are nondisehargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. On April 27, 1995, after a lengthy final evidentiary hearing, this Court entered Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion concluding that the debts were in fact dischargeable. The Motion currently before the Court specifically seeks rehearing of the portion of the Findings which addresses the cash advances made within the presumption period contained in § 523(a)(2)(C). After a review of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion, this Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to supplement the Opinion in order to clarify the analysis and the conclusion reached by this Court.
In the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion, this Court concluded that certain cash advances made by the Debtor within the twenty days prior to the filing of the Debtor’s bankruptcy ease were not within the presumption of nondis-chargeability created by § 523(a)(2)(C). According to the Plaintiffs, this court concluded that the debts incurred by the Debtor within twenty days of the filing of his bankruptcy case did not fall within the presumption contained in § 523(a)(2)(C) based upon the failure of the Plaintiffs to establish that the debts incurred were consumer debts.
It is well established that the burden of proof for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(C) is on the Plaintiffs to establish that the debts incurred fall within the presumption. In order to establish this, the Plaintiffs must show that there exists (1) a consumer debt; (2) owed to a single creditor; (3) aggregating more that $500.00; (4) for luxury goods or services; (5) incurred by an individual debt- or; (6) on or within forty days before the order for relief. It should be noted that what is statutorily presumed is not the existence of any of these six elements, but the presumption is that the debtor incurred the debt without the intention to repay the obligation. In re Koch, 83 B.R. 898 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988); In re Costantino, 72 B.R. 189 (Bankr.D.S.C.1986); In re Leaird, 106 B.R. 177 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1989). There is no obligation in the law, as is argued by the Plaintiffs, which requires the Debtor to prove that the debt is dischargeable where the Plaintiff has not made the initial showing of the applicability of the presumption contained in § 523(a)(2)(C).
After considering the record of this matter, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion entered by this Court on April 27, 1995, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the presumption contained in § 523(a)(2)(C) applied to the debts incurred by the Debtor by failing to establish that the cash advances made by the Debtor were consumer in nature. Based upon the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the conclusion reached in the Findings of Fact, Memorandum of Law and Memorandum Opinion was correct.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Rehearing is hereby granted, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion is hereby clarified as set forth above.
DONE AND ORDERED.