From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Madsen

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Nov 2, 1999
195 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 1999)

Summary

granting summary judgment as jury instruction definitions were equal to standards under § 523

Summary of this case from Brooke-Petit v. Spagnuolo (In re Spagnuolo)

Opinion

No. 99-2197NI

Submitted: October 5, 1999

Filed: November 2, 1999

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the for the Northern District of Iowa.

Steven P. Wandro, Sandra K. Lyons, Des Moines, IA, for appellant.

James E. Walsh, Jr., Timothy W. Hamann, Bradley A. Temple, Waterloo, IA, for appellee.

BEFORE: McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.


Hobson Mould Works, Inc., filed with the Bankruptcy Court an adversary complaint seeking a determination that a state-court judgment against Aaron Lease and Douglas Madsen for misappropriation of Hobson's trade secrets had collateral-estoppel effect in a dischargeability proceeding in Lease's and Madsen's bankruptcy case, and that the judgment was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6). The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to Hobson after a hearing, the District Court affirmed, and Lease and Madsen now appeal.

The Honorable Paul J. Kilburg, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Collateral estoppel applies in bankruptcy dischargeability proceedings brought under section 523(a). See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284-85 n. 11 (1991). When the parties have previously litigated an issue in a state court, the Bankruptcy Court will apply the law of collateral estoppel of the state. See Haberer v. Woodbury County, No. 98-2551, 1999 WL 652467, at *3 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 1999). Under Iowa law, collateral estoppel applies if (1) there is an identity of issues in the current and prior actions, (2) the issue was raised and actually litigated in the prior action, (3) the issue was material and relevant to the disposition of the prior action, and (4) the determination was necessary and essential to the prior judgment. See Dolan v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 573 N.W.2d 254, 256 (Iowa 1998).

Under section 523(a)(6), a debtor is not discharged from any debt for "willful and malicious injury" to another. For purposes of this section, the term willful means deliberate or intentional. See Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998) (§ 523(a)(6) requires deliberate or intentional injury); In re Long, 774 F.2d 875, 881 (8th Cir. 1985) (to meet willfulness component of § 523(a)(6), debtor's actions creating liability must have been "headstrong and knowing"). To qualify as "malicious," the debtor's actions must be "targeted at the creditor . . . at least in the sense that the conduct is certain or almost certain to cause financial harm." In re Long, 774 F.2d at 881. The jury in the state-court action found that debtors "willful[ly] and malicious[ly]" misappropriated Hobson's trade secret. We conclude that the definitions in the jury instructions, upon which the jury's finding was based, satisfied the definitions of willful and malicious under section 523(a)(6), that the other components of collateral estoppel were also satisfied, and that debtors were properly precluded from relitigating the issue of willfulness and malice under section 523(a)(6). See In re Balta, 151 B.R. 506, 508 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1993) (misappropriation of trade secrets constitutes willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6)). Therefore, the debt for misappropriation of trade secrets is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). We need not decide whether the debt is also nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4).

Accordingly, we affirm.


Summaries of

In re Madsen

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Nov 2, 1999
195 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 1999)

granting summary judgment as jury instruction definitions were equal to standards under § 523

Summary of this case from Brooke-Petit v. Spagnuolo (In re Spagnuolo)
Case details for

In re Madsen

Case Details

Full title:In re: Douglas C. Madsen, Debtor, Hobson Mould Works, Inc…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 1999

Citations

195 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

Scover v. Ramsey (In re Ramsey)

Therefore, the court must review the state court judgment to see whether it establishes the elements of a…

Phillips v. Phillips (In re Phillips)

Defendant first argues that collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, should only apply in dischargeability…