Lamar, Archer & Cofrin v. Appling (Decision June 4, 2018)
The Supreme Court limited what types of oral statements are considered fraud for purposes of bankruptcy discharge.
The bankruptcy code doesn't reward fraud. So if you file for bankruptcy, you won't be able to get discharged any debt that you incurred fraudulently. Sounds obvious. But what's considered fraud?
The debtor in this case (Appling) had accrued some law firm debt. At some point before getting more services, he told the law firm (Lamar, Archer & Cofrin) he'd be able to repay. He said he expected a tax refund of around $100,000, so no problem. Turns out, his tax refund wasn't near that.
Right to rely
Did the law firm have a right to rely on Appling's oral statement? Because at that point, Lamar continued to give Appling legal services, so either the services were incurred through fraud or they weren't.
The bankruptcy code says that oral statements "respecting" the debtor's "financial condition" are not fraud. They are more unreliable than when you put something in writing.
The law firm wants Appling's statement to be considered fraud - thus, not qualify for the oral statement exception. The law firm says that to qualify for that exception, the statement must be very general. It must relate to the debtor's big picture financials. That's what "financial condition" means; it's big picture.
Appling, however, said no way. The oral statement I made was just talk. It was an oral statement "respecting" my financial condition. It just happened to be about a single asset (my tax refund). But that doesn't make it fraudulent.
The Supreme Court agreed with Appling. The broader interpretation wins. See the Court's ruling for the statutory analysis written by Sotomayor. The syllabus might get you what you need.
View recent reports:
The lower court justified itself sufficiently in making the sentence adjustment.
The Fifth Circuit used the wrong standard in deciding when to fix a judge’s mistake. It must reconsider Rosales-Mireles’ case.
Lozman still has a retaliatory arrest claim against the City, despite that there was probable cause for his arrest.
The denial of preliminary relief on the political gerrymandering claim stands.
The plaintiffs did not show adequate injuries to bring the political gerrymandering case.
The court was not required to defer to the Chinese government’s brief in interpreting Chinese law.
Minnesota’s ban on political apparel violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Individuals in police custody must be told their 5th Amendment rights before interrogation, or the evidence is not valid in court.
The Minnesota law can apply retroactively, so Sveen’s kids will get the life insurance proceeds.
Resh’s class action was not filed on time because the claim is not entitled to the time extension.
Ohio’s voter roll purging process does not violate federal law.
The Supreme Court interprets “based on” in the sentence reduction rule.
Appling can get the law firm debt discharged in bankruptcy because his oral statement was not fraudulent.
Colorado must reconsider Masterpiece Cakeshop’s case because its original ruling expressed hostility towards religion, violating the First Amendment.
Court dismisses City of Hays v. Vogt as “improvidently granted.”