Bankr. No.:
96-40476
Adv. No.:
96-4050
Chapter:
7
Date of Decision:
May 29, 1997
Issue:
Whether Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on denial of discharge complaint where it showed Defendant-Debtor's schedules did not accurately set forth Defendant-Debtor's interest in two pickups but where Defendant-Debtor argued he should be allowed to testify as to his lack of fraudulent intent when he prepared the schedules?
Ruling:
Trial on Defendant-Debtor's fraudulent intent regarding errors and omissions on his schedules was not necessary where a reasonable trier of fact could only infer from the present record that Debtor's errors and omissions were fraudulent and where Defendant-Debtor could point to no other evidence that would support his lack of fraudulent intent. Summary judgment for Plaintiff was entered.
Full Bankruptcy Court Decision:
