Bartenwerfer v. Buckley

Last updated

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 2022
Decided February 22, 2023
Full case nameKate Marie Bartenwerfer v. Kieran Buckley
Docket no. 21-908
Citations598 U.S. 69 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
PriorBartenwerfer v. Buckley, 860 Fed. App’x. 544 (9th Cir. 2021)
Questions presented
Whether an individual may be subject to liability for the fraud of another that is barred from discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), by imputation, without any act, omission, intent or knowledge of her own.
Holding
Section 523(a)(2)(A) precludes Kate Bartenwerfer from discharging in bankruptcy a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of her own culpability.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityBarrett, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceSotomayor, joined by Jackson
Laws applied
United States Bankruptcy Code

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that debts incurred by fraud cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, regardless of whether the debtor committed the fraud.

Contents

Background

In 2012, the petitioner, Kate Bartenwerfer, and her husband lost a jury verdict after allegedly failing to disclose defects in a house that they sold in San Francisco, California. In 2013, they declared a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. [1] The petitioner argued in the bankruptcy court that she should be permitted to discharge debts relating to the fraud because she had no knowledge of the fraud by which the debt was incurred; instead, the fraud was allegedly done by her husband without her knowledge. [1] The bankruptcy court adopted the "known or should have known" test arising out of Walker v. Citizens Bank,726F.2d452(8th Cir.1984). Under that test, a court should permit the discharge of debt unless the debtor knew or should have known that the debt was incurred through fraud. [2] Because the petitioner demonstrated that she did not know the debt was incurred by fraud, and had no reason to know, the court concluded that the debt that she had incurred should be discharged. [3]

In 2021, the Ninth Circuit overruled the bankruptcy court, holding that the "knew or should have known" test applied by the bankruptcy court was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent in Strang v. Bradner,114U.S.555(1885). and circuit precedent in In re Cecchini,780F.2d1440(9th Cir.1986). [2] Instead, the Ninth Circuit refused to discharge the debt because the debt itself was incurred through fraud, despite that the petitioner had no knowledge of it. [3] The ruling widened a circuit split with the Ninth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits on the one hand and the Seventh and Eighth Circuits on the other. [4]

The petitioner sought certiorari to the Supreme Court later that year, and certiorari was granted in 2022. [5]

Supreme Court

Oral argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 6, 2022. The justices focused on the language of 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(2)(A), which excepts from discharge debts incurred by "money... obtained by... actual fraud." [6] A SCOTUSblog analyst argued that the justices' questions to counsel for the petitioner were more hostile than those to counsel for the respondent or the United States; they drew a distinction between the fraudulent origin of a debt and whether the debtor knows of that fraud. [7]

Decision

On February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously held that fraudulently obtained debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. [8] In so holding, the Court reasoned that the exception is triggered by whether the money was obtained by fraud; the question of who committed the fraud is irrelevant. [9]

In her concurrence, Justice Sotomayor argued that the decision should apply only to debts obtained through the fraud of a partner or agent of the bankrupt. [8]

Representation

The petitioner was represented by Sarah Harris and Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly; Iain Macdonald of Macdonald Fernandez; and Reno Fernandez of the Complex Appellate Litigation Group. [10]

The respondent was represented by Zachary Tripp of Weil, Gotshal & Manges; and Janet Marie Brayer of the Law Offices of Janey Brayer. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bankruptcy in the United States</span> Overview of bankruptcy in the United States of America

In the United States, bankruptcy is largely governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, including through adoption of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, codified in Title 11 of the United States Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about attorney's fees in bankruptcy cases. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157 (1991), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals are eligible to file for relief under the reorganization provisions of chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, even if they are not engaged in a business. The case overturned the lower courts ruling which restricted individuals to chapter 7.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a plaintiff can state a claim for securities fraud under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2010), based on a pharmaceutical company's failure to disclose reports of adverse events associated with a product if the reports do not find statistically significant evidence that the adverse effects may be caused by the use of the product. In a 9–0 opinion delivered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the respondents, plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., and three Matrixx executives, had stated a claim under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the "ecclesiastical exception," is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment relationships with its "ministers." As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and seeks to both (1) safeguard religious groups' "freedom. .. to select their own ministers," a principle rooted in the Free Exercise Clause, and (2) prevent "government involvement in [] ecclesiastical decisions," a prohibition stemming from the Establishment Clause. When applied, the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;" for example, female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring. However, exactly which types of employees should qualify as a "ministers," and thus how broadly the exception should apply, was the subject of recent litigation before the Supreme Court.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. 61 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the means test in Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The means test had been adopted by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and Ransom is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court addressed provisions of that act.

Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C). The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was the estate of former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith. Smith died in 2007, before the Court decided the case, which her estate lost.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014), is a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States that describes the extent of the powers of bankruptcy courts in dealing with the bad faith of debtors.

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning whether the United States government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt over 10 years old. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision that allowed the offset by the government.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589, is an 1891 decision of the United States Supreme Court on equitable relief, res judicata and fraud on the court in diversity jurisdiction. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a unanimous Court that held it unconscionable to allow a state court's decision to stand that had been based on documents later exposed as forgeries. It permitted a federal case seeking to set that verdict aside to go forward.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the United States bankruptcy courts.

Fitisemanu v. United States was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to consider if the Insular Cases should be overturned and whether people living in American territories such as American Samoa are guaranteed birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed. The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.

Arellano v. McDonough, 598 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1), a provision relating to VA disability compensations, is not subject to equitable tolling.

References

  1. 1 2 Wolf, Alex; Nani, James. "Wiping Away Debts From Others' Fraud Weighed by Supreme Court". news.bloomberglaw.com. Bloomberg Law. Retrieved December 11, 2022.
  2. 1 2 In re Bartenwerfer,860Fed. Appx.544.
  3. 1 2 AARP Foundation. "In for a Dime, In for a Dollar? Can a Partner Escape Liability in Bankruptcy for a Fraud by Blaming Another Partner?". AARP Foundation. Retrieved December 11, 2022.
  4. ↑ Chutchian, Maria (May 2, 2022). "U.S. Supreme Court to weigh whether wife liable in bankruptcy for husband's fraud". Reuters . Retrieved December 11, 2022.
  5. ↑ SCOTUSblog. "Bartenwerfer v. Buckley". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 11, 2022.
  6. ↑ 11 U.S.C.   § 523(a)(2)(A)
  7. ↑ Mann, Ronald (December 7, 2022). "Justices debate bankruptcy treatment of debts incurred by fraud". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved December 11, 2022.
  8. 1 2 Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598U.S.__ (2023).
  9. ↑ Mann, Ronald (February 23, 2023). "Justices narrow bankruptcy relief from debts incurred by fraud". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved February 24, 2023.
  10. ↑ "Reply Brief for Petitioner" (PDF). Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, Sup. Ct. No. 21-908.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  11. ↑ Knauth, Dietrich (December 6, 2022). "Justices skeptical of bankruptcy protection for 'unwitting' beneficiaries of fraud". Reuters.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.