In re Dardinger, 566 B.R. 481, 502 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2017) (“[B]ankruptcy courts applying the doctrine of issue preclusion routinely conclude that an award of punitive damages by an Ohio state court establishes that the court has made the findings sufficient to satisfy the ‘malice’ requirement of § 523(a)(6).”). 19-04012-aih Doc 25 FILED 10/18/19 ENTERED 10/18/19 14:40:55 Page 13 of 14 14 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the creditor’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Thus, to establish re- spondent's culpability for the charged section 6106 violations, the State Bar need only prove that he in- curred these $19,327 in credit card debts without intending to repay them. Unlike Bank One andFirst Card who were required to prove the five elements of common law fraud to obtain a judgment declar- ing that respondent's debts to them are nondis- chargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A), the State Baris not required to establish each ofthe five ele- ments of common law fraud to establish the charged violations of section 6106. After he weighedall the evidence, the hearing judge was “‘clearly convinced that Respondent bor- rowed without an intent to repay the money, which is an act of dishonesty.”

N FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Having read and considered Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Santander Consumer USA’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) and any response thereto, it appearing that there is no dispute of material fact, and that the defendant/counter-plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Motion is Granted; and it is further ORDERD that judgment is entered in favor of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (“SC”) and against Eric Lamar English (“English”) in the amount of $10,371.76, together with pre-judgment interest totaling $1,611.52 through April 14, 2017, and additional pre-judgment interest at the rate of $6.71 per day from April 15, 2017 through the date hereof, with post-judgment interest to run at the statutory rate, and attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined upon submission by SC; and it is further ORDERED, that the money judgment entered herein is declared to be not discharged by English pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(3) and 523(a)(3)(B); and it is further Case 8:16-cv-02745-DKC Document 24-1 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 2 2 ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of SC and against English with respect to all claims asserted by English in his Complaint and such claims are dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that SC may, but is not required, to file a statement of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this matter, which are allowed by the parties’ contract, within 30 days of entry of this Order. Dated: Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, United States District Judge cc: Andrew L. Cole, Esq.

For these reasons, the Court finds and concludes that the debt that Brent seeks to collect had been discharged in 2010 by operation of law under In re Parker. With that being said, the Court makes no findings or determinations if the debt could be non-dischargeable under § 523(a). If Brent wishes to have the Court make a determination as to the underlying debt being non- dischargeable, then that must only be done through an adversary proceeding.

In response to Mr. Gordon’s request, the Debtors purportedly sent Mr. Gordon an email stating that they no longer owned their home and presumably could not execute a promissory note secured by their home. Id. ¶ 27.d. At the latest, Mr. Gordon learned of the essential fact underlying his § 523(a)(2) claim—the allegedly false statement from the Debtors—when Debtors listed the residence on their schedules in this case after purportedly denying ownership of the home on August 24, 2018. Id.

Mrs. Wroblewski actively participated in the plan to transfer the property to her brother so that the property would be shielded from Case 3:07-cv-00081-BTM-WMC Document 65 Filed 01/16/09 Page 7 of 9Case 3:16-cv- 1705-L-DHB Document 8-7 Filed 11/17/16 Page 8 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 07cv81 BTM(WMc) tax collection proceedings. Therefore, the Wroblewskis’ joint liabilities for tax years 1997 through 2001 were rendered non-dischargeable in their entirety under section 523(a)(1)(C). C. Foreclosure The United States seeks to foreclose federal tax liens against the Wroblewskis’ interest in the Subject Property. However, according to the Wroblewskis, on August 20, 2008, the lender holding the First Deed of Trust foreclosed on the property.

Bentley, 266 B.R. at 235–36. The Bentley court continued to state that the student loan obligations of the kind set forth in § 523(a)(8) are not priority claims. Id. at 236.

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1328(a), the debtor(s) is discharged from all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. Section 502, except any debt: a. provided for under 11 U.S.C. Section 1322(b)(5) and on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan was due; b. in the nature of alimony to, maintenance for, or support of a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor(s) in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, or property settlement agreement, as specified in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5); c. for a student loan or educational benefit overpayment as specified in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(8); d. for a death or personal injury caused by the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle by the debtor(s) while intoxicated from using alcohol, drug, or other substance, as specified in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(9), in a bankruptcy case filed on or after November 15, 1990; e. for restitution included in a sentence on the conviction of a crime by the debtor(s) in a case filed on or after November 15, 1990. f. for a fine included in a sentence on the debtor's conviction of a crime, in a case commenced on or after October 22, 1994.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that debts of the kind specified in §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) are not discharged if such debts were neither listed nor scheduled by the debtor, with the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, in time to permit the creditor to timely file a proof of claim and timely request for a determination of dischargeability of such debt, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B). Mr. Malik failed to schedule debts to Ms. Lama in his voluntary petition for relief.

Pursuant to § 523(a)(1)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code, a discharge under § 727 of the bankruptcy code does not discharge a debtor from any debt with respect to which “the debtor made a fraudulent return.” See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(c). See Dalton v. IRS, 77 F.3d 1297, 1299- 1300 (10th Cir. 1996); In re Mitchell, 633 F.3d 1319, 1326-1327 (11th Cir. 2011).