Creasy

Creasy v. Creasy

Good Law
20 F. App'x 613
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 31, 2001No. 00-16847; D.C. No. CV-99-02039-ROSCalifornia284 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Frederick Clark Creasy appeals pro se the district court’s partial affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order, holding that two out of three judgment debts, established by a state court judgment, owed by Creasy to appel-lee were not dischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on an appeal from a bankruptcy court. Worthington v. General Motors Corp. (In re Claremont Acquisition Corp., Inc.), 113 F.3d 1029, 1031 (9th Cir.1997). We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Id. We affirm.

Contrary to Creasy’s contention, the principles of collateral estoppel apply to discharge exception proceedings pursu *614 ant to section 523(a), see Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 , 285 n. 11, 111 S.Ct. 654 , 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991), and a federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive in that state, see O’Malley Lumber Co. v. Lockard (In re Lockard), 884 F.2d 1171, 1174-75 (9th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, both the district court and bankruptcy court correctly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.