Pemstein

Pemstein v. Pemstein (In re Pemstein)

Good Law
476 B.R. 254
United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 26, 2012Bankruptcy No. 2:12-bk-15900-RK; Adversary No. 2:12-ap-01291-RKCalifornia2,525 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kwan, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: ADVERSARY COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 (a)(4) AND (a)(6), AND OBJECTION TO DISCHARGE PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 727 (a)(2)(A) AND 727(a)(3)

The above-captioned adversary proceeding came on for a trial before the undersigned United States Bankruptcy Judge on November 30, 2011 and April 10, 2012 on the complaint of plaintiff Harold Pemstein for determination of dischargeability of debt and denial of discharge pursuant to Sections 523(a)(4) and (6) and 727(a)(2)(A) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. (the “Complaint”). Plaintiff Harold Pem-stein (“Harold”) appeared for himself and was also represented by Christopher L. Blank, Attorney at Law, P.C. Alan W. Forsley, of the law firm of Fredman Knup-fer Liberman, LLP, appeared for defendants Martin Pemstein (“Martin”) and Diana Pemstein (“Diana”).

Having considered the testimony of the witnesses and the other evidence admitted at trial and the oral and written arguments of the parties, the court hereby issues this memorandum decision setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule…

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.