In Re David Rock Hudson, Debtor. Gregory Stackhouse and Esther Stackhouse v. David Rock Hudson

859 F.2d 1418 57 USLW 2283 , 19 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1185 , 18 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 952 , Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,472 In re David Rock HUDSON, Debtor. Gregory STACKHOUSE and Esther Stackhouse, Appellants, v. David Rock HUDSON, Appellee. No. 87-3913. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1988. Decided Oct. 27, 1988. John J. Dorman, Tacoma, Wash., for appellants. Charles A. Schaaf, Forks, Wash., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. Before FLETCHER and WIGGINS, * Circuit Judges, and CARROLL, District Judge. ** FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Gregory and Esther Stackhouse appeal from the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment in favor of David Rock Hudson (debtor) holding that any judgment debt that might be entered in a pending suit for damages arising from drunk driving would be dischargeable. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523 (a)(9), requires that a creditor obtain judgment for damages against a debtor prior to the debtor's filing for bankruptcy as a prerequisite to having declared nondischargeable a…

Gregory and Esther Stackhouse appeal from the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judg *1419 ment in favor of David Rock Hudson (debt- or) holding that any judgment debt that might be entered in a pending suit for damages arising from drunk driving would be dischargeable. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(9), requires that a creditor obtain judgment for damages against a debtor prior to the debt- or’s filing for bankruptcy as a prerequisite to having declared nondischargeable a debt arising from damages caused by drunk driving. We hold that a prepetition judgment is not required, and reverse the decision of the BAP.

FACTS

The facts are not in dispute. On March 28, 1982, Gregory Stackhouse was seriously injured in an automobile-motorcycle collision with Hudson. Immediately after the collision, a Washington state trooper administered a breathalyzer test to Hudson. He was cited for and later convicted of driving while intoxicated.

Stackhouse and his wife filed suit against Hudson in state court for injuries sustained in the accident. On December 12, 1985, the day before trial was to…

Dissenting:

I was invited to join this panel after the death of Judge Anderson. He was a member of the original panel and in that capacity prepared for oral argument, heard the arguments of counsel, participated in the post-argument conference of the panel, and drafted a proposed disposition, all prior to his death. The proposed disposition of Judge Anderson is contrary to the judgment of the majority.

I exercise independent judgment as a new member of this panel. I have read the briefs carefully and have listened to the tape recordings of the oral argument. I find much to commend the result reached by the majority. It is a decision that applies common sense to an inartfully drafted statute. However, I must dissent. Judge Anderson has stated the reasons in his draft disposition which I herewith adopt in relevant part.

After reviewing the facts and stating the appropriate standard of review, Judge Anderson noted the failure of the bankruptcy courts to apply the literal wording of 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(9). He then concluded, “with all due respect for my bankruptcy colleagues, these decisions are not persuasive.” He thereupon stated his reasons:

“I.

“The reasoning behind these…