Evidence of Intent to ‘Hinder’ Wasn’t Sufficient to Deny Discharge, District Judge Says

April 4, 2024

Evidence of Intent to ‘Hinder’ Wasn’t Sufficient to Deny Discharge, District Judge Says

The bankruptcy court’s inference of intent to hinder the trustee wasn’t supported by the evidence, the district judge says in reversing a denial discharge.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/Wylie+v.+Miller.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

Wylie v. Miller, 22-10952 (S.D. Mich. March 29, 2024)

Case Name

Wylie v. Miller

Case Type

Consumer

Court

6th Circuit

Michigan

Michigan Eastern District

Bankruptcy Tags

Consumer Bankruptcy

Discharge/Dischargeability

Comments

Submitted by tmorris@morrisp... on April 4, 2024 - 10:13

The court did not find that there was "aggressive bankruptcy planning." The trustee alleged that there was fraud in nearly everything that the debtors did. The bankruptcy court rejected that argument, but nevertheless denied the discharge. The debtors argued on appeal that the bankruptcy court had adopted a per-se rule: If the debtors' actions might tend to hinder the trustee, they intended to hinder the trustee. The district court reversed on the basis that the denial of the discharge(s) was not supported by the record. Thomas R. Morris, [email protected].