(631)-271-3737
(718)-751-0226
(516)-307-0262
(347)-508-9316Before this question can be answered, it is important to be familiar with the statutory provisions that address and clarify this issue.
11 U.S. Code § 523 lists different exceptions to debt discharges when one files for bankruptcy. The exception relevant to this topic is listed in section (a)(6). It states “(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [1] 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt― (6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;”.
11 U.S. Code Service § 101 defines what an entity is and what it includes. It states that an “‘entity’ includes person, estate, trust, governmental unit, and United States trustee.”
This statutory provision implies that filing for bankruptcy may allow for a debtor’s debt to be discharged however, there are exceptions to that rule that will not allow for the debt to be discharged. The plain language of the statute requires that the injury must be both willful and malicious, Long Island Invasive Surgery, P.C. v. Orslini (In re Orslini), 649 B.R. 424, 440 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2023). Therefore, the courts have to consider both elements to determine if a person’s debt is nondischargeable.
What is considered to be a “willful” injury?
According to Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S 57, 61 (1998), the Supreme Court agreed with the Eight Circuit’s breakdown of the word willful. The Supreme Court reasoned that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury. A deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury would not fit the criteria for a willful injury. The court further reasoned that “intentional torts” should trigger the minds of lawyers to determine what is considered willful acts which are distinguished from “negligent or reckless torts”. If the debtor acted in a negligent or reckless manner, then they’re debt will be discharged however, intentional torts indicate that the person had the purpose or knowledge to cause specific consequences or results.
Common Intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, tresspass to chattels, and trespass to land. Also, fraud is another intentional tort common to 11 U.S. Code § 523 (a)(6). These intentional torts are indicators that the debt will be nondischargeable. This is a general list of willful injuries.
What is considered to be a “malicious” injury?
According to Plaza v. Heilbron (In re Heilbron), 655 B.R. 277, 295 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2023), The court explained that a court may find malice when a person of reasonable intelligence knows that an act is ontrary to commonly accepted duties in ordinary relationships among people. The court further stated that malice can be inferred from the defendant’s criminal conviction. If the criminal court found that the defendant caused injury without just cause or excuse then that may be considered a malicious injury. In simpler terms, the bankruptcy court can look at the criminal conviction for the injury. If the criminal court determines that the injury resulted without good cause, like self-defense, then the bankruptcy court can look at that criminal conviction and then determine that the injury is malicious. Malice can also be defined as wrongful and without just cause or excuse, even in the absence of personal hatred, spite, or ill-will. Itria Ventures LLC v. O’Keefe (In re O’Keefe), Nos. 19-30173, 19-50010, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2420, at *17 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Sep. 11, 2020).
Dischargeable Debt through Self–Defense
As stated earlier, malice can be inferred if a defendant acted without just cause or excuse. Self-defense is considered to be one of the doctrines of acting in just cause and an excuse. Therefore, if a debtor filed for
bankruptcy and a criminal court held that he acted in self-defense, then the bankruptcy court will discharge the debt when he files for bankruptcy. In one specific case, the debtor, who was a teenager, fought another teenager, and punched him exactly one time and the teenager died when he fell and hit his head as a result of the punch. Estate of Sustache v. Matthews (In re Matthews), 433 B.R. 732, 733 (Bankr.
E.D. Wis. 2010). The court held that the debtor’s conduct and belief were comparable to a reasonable sixteen year child. The court believed that the debtor reasonably believed that he was in danger or suffered great bodily harm and that punching the other teenager was necessary to save his life or protect him from great bodily harm. Therefore, the debtor’s conduct was not malicious as a required element under 11 U.S. Code § 523 (a)(6).
Dischargeable Debt through Reckless or Negligent Acts
In Cassidy v. Minihan, 794 F.2d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 1986), the court held that there was no evidence that the defendant tried to harm or cause injury to anyone. The court established that the defendant’s conduct was reckless with a reckless disregard for the risks involved rather than willful and malicious. Therefore, the courts concluded that the defendant’s debts are dischargeable under 11 U.S. Code § 523 (a)(6). This case highlights that reckless conducts that results injuries can be discharged because the debtors intent would not satisfy the willful and malicious elements. Conclusively, if the creditor cannot prove that the debtor tried to harm or cause injury then the courts will have make a enter a judgment for the debtor finding that their debt is dischargeable.
In short, a debtor who injured another person or a person’s property may or may not get their debts discharged when filing for bankruptcy. Debts are typically nondischargeable if the debtor acted in a willful and malicious manner. When considering what may be willful and malicious injuries, a person should think of intentional torts. Therefore, a debtor who injured another person or another person’s property get their debts discharged by filing for bankruptcy the court must determine that the debtor acted with just cause or excuse through self defense or prove that the debtor acted recklessly.
