  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
contained data that allowed the IRS to calculate the debtor's tax obligation more accurately than the IRS's substitutes had, resulting in abatement of thousands of dollars of tax and interest, so they constituted "returns.")
Nunnery v. Rountree (In re Rountree), 478 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2007) (Debtor's obligation to creditor did not meet the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) and, thus, was dischargeable. Debtor was a private investigator who befriended creditor and videotaped her water skiing, jet skiing, riding horses and enjoying amusement park rides. Those videotapes were used against creditor in her personal injury suit. Creditor then obtained a state court judgment against debtor based on fraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The state court judgment was dischargeable, however, despite creditor's argument that § 523(a)(2)(A) applied. That section only applies when money, property, services or credit is "obtained by" false pretenses, false representations or fraud. Debtor never received anything by defrauding creditor. Accordingly, the debt remained dischargeable.)
Evans v. Ottimo, 469 F.3d 278 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2006) (Pre-petition state court default judgment that expressly found debtor had engaged in fraud bars relitigation in bankruptcy court of the fraudulent character of the debt. The default judgment resolved all issues necessary to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2), so collateral estoppel applies based on the issue in the state court being identical to the issue in the bankruptcy court. The debtor had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in state court even though the debtor did not answer the complaint or actually appear in the state court proceeding.)
In re Fernandez-Rocha, 451 F.3d 813 (11th Cir. June 12, 2006) (Doctor/debtor's state-law obligation to maintain malpractice insurance, escrowed funds, or letter of credit did not create fiduciary relationship to patient or otherwise constitute a separate debt to patient. Doctor's malpractice-related debt to patient could not therefore be characterized as a "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity" that would except the malpractice debt from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4).)
Ball v. A.O. Smith Corp., 451 F.3d 66 (2nd Cir. June 9, 2006) (Award of sanctions against attorney/debtor supported application of collateral estoppel to establish malice pursuant to § 523(a)(6) exception to discharge. Pursuant to Fifth Circuit law, a violation of 28 U.S.C. 1927 requires a finding of conduct that is both unreasonable and for an improper purpose, which matches the bankruptcy definition of "malice" as wrongful and without just cause or excuse.)
In re Duncan, 448 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. May 24, 2006) (Both debtor and creditor invoked collateral estoppel to support their respective positions regarding the
