Buckley
Buckley v. Bartenwerfer (In re Bartenwerfer)
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Blumenstiel, J.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter came on for trial on January 19 and 22, 2016 on Plaintiff Kieran Buckley’s complaint to determine the dis-chargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A). 1 The sole issue at trial was whether Defendants David and Kate Bar-tenwerfer fraudulently omitted disclosing material defects plaguing real property sold by the Bartenwerfers to Mr. Buckley.
Janet Brayer and Stephen Finestone appeared for Mr. Buckley. Iain MacDonald and Matthew Olson appeared for the Bar-tenwerfers. After the parties rested, the Court took the matter under advisement.
This memorandum decision constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable to this adversary proceeding by Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b). The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by this Court in this action, which is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(I). Venue of this lawsuit is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409 .