Opinion
No. 79-1471
July 2, 1980
Former Bankruptcy Act — Discharge of Debts — Willful and Malicious Injuries — Collateral Estoppel
The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies in a bankruptcy proceeding deciding the nondischargeability of a judgment arising from conduct which was malicious and willful since, in the state court action, the factual issues were determined by standards identical to those in Section 17a(8) of the Bankruptcy Act. See Sec. 17a(8) at ¶ 2152 and Sec. 523(a)(6) at ¶ 9232.
[Digest of Opinion]
Following a jury trial and verdict in a state court action for assault and battery, the creditor was awarded a judgment against the bankrupt. The creditor now seeks to have this judgment declared non-dischargeable under Section 17a(8) of the Bankruptcy Act.
The state court complaint alleged that the debtor "intentionally, maliciously and wantonly assaulted the creditor with great force, and struck the creditor many severe and grievous blows upon his head, face, chest and other parts of his body, thereby greatly injuring him." In his affidavit, the trial judge stated that the action was a civil battery case for money damages, that intent was a specific element of that offense, and that he so instructed the jury. The affidavit of the creditor's attorney stated that the bankrupt was represented by an attorney at the state court trial, that both sides called and subpoenaed witnesses, and that bankrupt themselves testified and were subjected to cross-examination.
The Court, in Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 (1979) described in a footnote that the doctrine of collateral estoppel would be applied as follows: "If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of Section 17, then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court."
In the instant case, the court found that the state court, by virtue of its instructions to the jury, did in fact use standards identical to those of Section 17. In addition, res judicata and collateral estoppel are principles of universal jurisprudence utilized to prevent needless litigation and to give respose to both litigants and society. They are, the court observed, neither technical nor inexorable rules of law, but rather rules of justice to be employed in a particular situation as fairness and justice require. Accordingly, in the case at bar, the court found it would be a denial of justice to require the creditor, having won in state court, to prove his case a second time in bankruptcy court. Consequently, the creditor's judgment was found to be nondischargeable.