The commission of a serious crime doesn’t necessarily give rise to a nondischargeable debt, as Bankruptcy Judge Robert L. Jones of Lubbock, Texas, explained in an opinion on July 7. The opinion shows a bankruptcy judge aiding the rehabilitation of a felon who served his time and lost his freedom, his family, his home and his business.
The debtor was a licensed respiratory therapist who, as a sideline, bought, sold and manufactured firearms without a license, in violation of federal law. In 2016, he sold an automatic weapon to an individual whose mental condition disqualified him from buying guns. Adding to his sins, the debtor sold the weapon without a background check that would have disclosed the buyer’s disability when it comes to owning firearms.
Three years after the sale, the buyer killed seven people in a mass shooting that injured 25 more. The authorities eventually traced the gun to the debtor, who pled guilty to felonies and was sentenced to two years in federal prison.
While the debtor was in prison, the victims of the mass killing or their representatives sued the debtor and others. The complaint made claims of negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence and public nuisance.
To stop the suit, the debtor filed a chapter 7 petition while still incarcerated and attended his Section 341 meeting telephonically from prison.
The crime victims filed an adversary proceeding to declare the claims nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6) as a debt for “willful and malicious injury.” However, federal law, which put the debtor in prison, was on his side when it came to dischargeability.
Judge Jones said that none of the tort claims by the crime victims “clearly implicate a degree of intent or willfulness.” He quoted the Fifth Circuit for holding that Section 523(a)(6) covers acts done with actual intent but “excludes intentional acts that cause injury.” Williams v. IBEW Local 520 (In re Williams), 337 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 2003).
In the same vein, Judge Jones quoted the Supreme Court:
The . . . word “willful” [in Section 523(a)(6)] modifies the word “injury,” indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely, as the [creditors] urge, a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998)). [Emphasis in original.]
Judge Jones quoted the Fifth Circuit for synthesizing its own authority and the Supreme Court’s by holding “that ‘[t]he test for willful and malicious injury under Section 523(a)(6) … is condensed into a single inquiry of whether there exists “either an objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm” on the part of the debtor.’” Williams, supra, 337 F.3d at 509.
Applying the test, Judge Jones first analyzed whether the facts gave rise to “an objective certainty of harm.”
“Despite the tragic events almost three years after the sale,” Judge Jones said that he could not “conclude that [the debtor] could foresee or anticipate with any degree of certainty that [the killer] would use the gun in a mass shooting.”
Second, Judge Jones asked, was there “a subjective motive to cause harm?” He said that the “plaintiffs provided no evidence that [the debtor] intended to cause any harm, let alone the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs.”
Judge Jones discharged the debt because the sale of the automatic weapon “does not establish [the debtor’s] intent to willfully and maliciously injure the plaintiffs here.”
The commission of a serious crime doesn’t necessarily give rise to a nondischargeable debt, as Bankruptcy Judge Robert L. Jones of Lubbock, Texas, explained in an opinion on July 7. The opinion shows a bankruptcy judge aiding the rehabilitation of a felon who served his time and lost his freedom, his family, his home and his business.
The debtor was a licensed respiratory therapist who, as a sideline, bought, sold and manufactured firearms without a license, in violation of federal law. In 2016, he sold an automatic weapon to an individual whose mental condition disqualified him from buying guns. Adding to his sins, the debtor sold the weapon without a background check that would have disclosed the buyer’s disability when it comes to owning firearms.
Three years after the sale, the buyer killed seven people in a mass shooting that injured 25 more. The authorities eventually traced the gun to the debtor, who pled guilty to felonies and was sentenced to two years in federal prison.
While the debtor was in prison, the victims of the mass killing or their representatives sued the debtor and others. The complaint made claims of negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence and public nuisance.