Dresser

Dresser v. Arient

Good Law
33 F. App'x 860
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 2, 2002No. 00-56645; BAP No. SC-99-01713-RyMaRCalifornia658 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Darrell A. Dresser appeals a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court. We have jurisdiction over appeals from the BAP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d), and we affirm.

Dresser filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case of Marie-Antoinette Arient, contending that a debt owed to him by Arient was not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4) or (a)(6). 1 The bankruptcy court held that the debt was dischargeable because neither exception to dischargeability applied; the BAP affirmed. We review decisions of the BAP de novo, independently reviewing the bankruptcy court’s rulings. Contractors’ State License Bd. v. Dunbar (In re Dunbar) 245 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.2001).

11 U.S.C. § 523 provides, in part, that a discharge in bankruptcy does not discharge a debtor from a debt “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity,” or “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4) & (6). 2 In order to fall within *861 the meaning of § 523(a)(4), the fiduciary relationship must arise from an express or technical trust, not a…

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.