Daniel
Daniel v. Del Valle (In re Del Valle)
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Jury, J.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER TRIAL
INTRODUCTION
As succinctly stated in a recent trial decision from Hawaii, “ ‘[f]alse pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud’ does not always require an express misrepresentation. For example, ‘a debt- or’s misleading conduct intended to convey an inaccurate impression may constitute false pretenses.’ ” In re Higashi, 553 B.R. 153 (Bankr. D. Hawaii 2016). The investment scheme that Defendant/Debtor Jose Robert Del Valle (Del Valle) 1 lured Plaintiff Cynthia Daniel (Daniel) to participate in was just such false pretense. By making affirmative misrepresentations of fact, omitting disclosure of pertinent facts which he had a duty to disclose, and creating a false pretense of a low risk, high return investment program, Del Valle caused Daniel to part with her money because of his fraud. As a consequence, this court finds that the debt owed by Del Valle to Daniel is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A),
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Daniel’s friend Greg Harper, a real estate broker, met Del Valle at a gym in 2006. Over the course of several conversations, Del Valle described to Harper a new real estate business, RDV Consulting, Inc. (RDV), that…