A discharge in chapter often discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Part 523 of the Chapter Code, nevertheless, units forth sure exceptions to this coverage, together with for “any debt . . . for cash, property, providers, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit score, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false illustration, or precise fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). (We have now beforehand written about this provision within the context of statements respecting a debtor’s monetary situation.) There’s a break up among the many courts of attraction as as to if this provision applies solely to a debtor who has some stage of information of the fraud, or whether or not the bar on discharge applies additionally when the debtor is liable solely by imputation for a fraud dedicated by an agent or accomplice of the debtor. On Might 2, the Supreme Courtroom granted a petition for certiorari in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a case presenting this query.
Kate and David Bartenwerfer collectively bought a home in February 2005 for about $900,000 after which bought it in March 2008 to Kieran Buckley for $2.1 million. Buckley later sued the Bartenwerfers for breach of contract, negligence, nondisclosure of fabric info, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The jury discovered for Buckley on the breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of fabric info claims however discovered in opposition to him on the remaining claims, and awarded damages to Buckley. The Bartenwerfers then filed for chapter. Buckley introduced an adversary continuing within the chapter courtroom in opposition to the Bartenwerfers, arguing that the state courtroom judgment he had been awarded in opposition to them was nondischargeable beneath part 523(a)(2)(A) as a result of it was a debt that had been obtained via fraud. The chapter courtroom dominated in Buckley’s favor, discovering that David Bartenwerfer had precise data of the false representations and his fraudulent conduct may very well be imputed to Kate Bartenwerfer as his accomplice. The Ninth Circuit Chapter Appellate Panel reversed, holding that nondischargeability beneath part 523(a)(2)(A) solely resulted if a debtor “knew or ought to have identified” of the fraud, primarily based on the Eighth Circuit’s determination in Walker v. Residents State Financial institution (In re Walker), 726 F.2nd 452 (eighth Cir. 1984). On remand, the chapter courtroom held that Kate Bartenwerfer had no data of the fraud and her debt was due to this fact dischargeable, and the Chapter Appellate Panel affirmed. Buckley appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed, holding that the appliance of part 523(a)(2)(A) doesn’t rely on the debtor’s data of the fraud. Kate Bartenwerfer then petitioned for certiorari.
Bartenwerfer’s petition targeted on the presence of a circuit break up, noting that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling follows the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Deodati v. M.M. Winkler & Assocs. (In re M.M. Winkler & Assocs.), 239 F.3d 746 (fifth Cir. 2001), in conflicting with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in Walker. Bartenwerfer additionally made a number of arguments that the Ninth Circuit’s determination was flawed. First, Bartenwerfer pointed to the textual content of the availability and the statutory context of the Chapter Code, arguing that the availability’s textual content doesn’t expressly embody a debtor answerable for fraud by imputation and that barring such a legal responsibility from discharge can be inconsistent with the Chapter Code’s coverage of granting a recent begin to trustworthy however unlucky debtors. Second, Bartenwerfer argued {that a} data requirement is according to the statute’s legislative historical past, noting legislative statements that the availability was meant to cowl precise fraud reasonably than fraud implied by regulation. Third, Bartenwerfer argued that Supreme Courtroom selections discovering that scienter is a component of fraud for functions of part 523 assist imposing a scienter requirement right here.
Buckley’s opposition acknowledged the existence of a circuit break up, however argued it was outdated and lopsided in favor of the Fifth Circuit’s place, and was not of a lot significance as a result of it should hardly ever be the case {that a} debtor whose agent or accomplice dedicated fraud is not going to have any data of the fraudulent conduct. Buckley additionally argued that the Ninth Circuit’s determination was appropriate. First, Buckley pointed to the availability’s textual content, which states that “any debt” for cash “obtained by . . . precise fraud” is nondischargeable, with none assertion that the fraud want have been by the debtor or that the debtor want have identified of the fraud. Second, Buckley relied on the Supreme Courtroom’s determination in Strang v. Bradner, 114 U.S. 555 (1885), which, decoding an identical provision within the Chapter Act of 1867, held that the fraud of 1 accomplice may very well be imputed to the others for functions of nondischargeability. Third, Buckley argued that the Ninth Circuit’s studying of the statute is sensible, as a mirrored image of Congress’s want to prioritize the pursuits of the victims of fraud over the companions of fraudsters.
The Supreme Courtroom granted the petition on Might 2. The case will possible be argued and determined subsequent time period.
