Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ninth Circuit: Debt In Asset Case Is Nondischargeable If Debtor Fails to Properly Schedule the Debt
In a recent published decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a previously unresolved question in that circuit: whether a debtor's failure to properly schedule a debt in an "asset case" renders the debt nondischargeable. Answering the question in the affirmative, the court held that, with the exception of a "no asset" bankruptcy case, a debt is nondischargeable in its entirety if the debtor fails to properly schedule the debt. See, In re Licup, 95 F.4th 1234 (9th Cir. 2024).
|Background
In this case, creditor Jefferson Avenue Temecula LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against Christine Tracy Castro in 2012. In January 2013, Jefferson obtained a default judgment against Castro that included a monetary award to Jefferson in the amount of $31,780.29.
In February 2014, Castro and her husband, Edwin C. Licup, filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition. Although Castro and Licup submitted the required schedule, or list, of their creditors' names and mailing addresses (also known as a creditor matrix), the document listed an incorrect address for Jefferson's counsel. Although there were assets for the trustee to distribute in the case, Jefferson never filed a proof of claim. It was undisputed that Jefferson failed to receive notice of the bankruptcy filing, and otherwise did not have knowledge of it in time to timely file a claim. The debtors later received a discharge that listed the debt owed to Jefferson as discharged. The bankruptcy case was closed in September 2016.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
BONUS CONTENT: High Court May Limit the Reach of the Wire Fraud Statute: Post-Argument Update
A follow up to the article on a briefing in 'Kousisis v. United States' before the U.S. Supreme Court that considers the viability of the fraudulent inducement theory. Arguments before the Court took place on Dec. 9, and the authors provide an update.
Live Streaming Accelerates Business Growth
Live streaming has evolved significantly and is a widespread phenomenon for retail, gaming, and influencers but is now providing competitive advantages for leading accounting, management consulting, and other professional services firms and B-to-B companies looking to build their brands and increase business.
AI Poisoning: A Self Help Cybersecurity Option
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.