MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Brower (In re Brower)

Good Law
568 B.R. 803
United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2017Case No. 15-50801; Adv. No. 15-05119California2,489 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hammond, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Plaintiff MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (together with its relevant predecessors, the “Bank”) seeks to have the obligation of Debtor Robert Brower, Sr. (“Brower”) excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(B) and Brower’s discharge denied pursuant to § 727(a)(3). A trial on these matters was held on February 14, 15, and 22, 2017. For the reasons stated herein, I find Brower’s debt to the Bank is exempted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B) but that the Bank did not establish discharge should be denied pursuant to § 727(a)(3).

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 . These are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(I) and (J).

Background

In 1982, Brower and his wife, Patricia Brower (“Patricia”) established a wine estate in Monterey County, California. The assets and operations of their business venture were split between multiple privately-held corporations. For the purposes of this decision, the key entities are:

The Bank began its relationship with Chateau Julien in 1986. Around the same *806 time, Coastal Cypress borrowed funds from the Bank to acquire the real property for the wine estate. Effective May 15,…

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.