Buckley

Buckley v. Bartenwerfer (In re Bartenwerfer)

Good Law
596 B.R. 675
United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 2019Case No. 13-30827 HLB; Adv. Proc. No. 13-03185 HLBCalifornia5,711 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Blumenstiel, J.

On December 22, 2017, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (the "BAP") issued a decision (Dkt. 179; the "BAP Decision") that, among other things, vacated and remanded in part this court's judgment of April 19, 2016 (Dkt. 70, as amended by Dkt. 125 and Dkt. 143; the "Judgment"). The Judgment declared a debt owed to Mr. Kieran Buckley by Chapter *677 7 Debtors David and Kate Bartenwerfer nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) 1 . The BAP Decision affirmed the Judgment as to Mr. Bartenwerfer but vacated and remanded the Judgment as to Mrs. Bartenwerfer so that the court could determine whether Mrs. Bartenwerfer "knew or had reason to know of Mr. Bartenwerfer's fraudulent omissions" in connection with the sale of a house to Mr. Buckley (the "Remanded Issue"). [BAP Decision, 22:23-25.]

After a delay caused by the parties' respective appeals from the BAP Decision and this court's need for additional briefing, the court reopened the evidentiary record to accept additional testimony on the Remanded Issue, which the parties elicited at a trial conducted on December 12, 2018.

A. Background

For the sake of brevity, the court will not repeat but incorporates by…

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.