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 NRA sued New York and Governor Cuomo. This infographic explains each side’s First Amendment argument.
Infographic analyzing all Supreme Court cases of the 2017-2018 term by legal subject area and containing links to infographics explaining each decision.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has expressed views in line with Scalia’s on the EPA’s ability to regulate on climate change. With Kennedy out, see how the Court’s positions could change.
Learn about administrative agency power and how conservative and liberal viewpoints on regulation relate to it.
Learn about the Flores Settlement: the law setting standards on child detention.
On July 3, 2018 the Trump administration reversed Obama-era guidelines on using race in school admissions policies. Learn the legal background of the policy change in our infographic.
Florida’s water rights case against Georgia can continue. It should not be dismissed for “redressability.”
States cannot require public sector employees to pay union fees.
The California notice requirements affecting women’s health clinics are likely to violate the First Amendment.
Trump’s third version of the travel ban is not likely to violate federal law or the Constitution. The 9th Circuit’s decision halting the order is reversed.
Conservative Justices prevail in interpreting the Second Amendment. The ruling determined D.C.’s gun control laws were unconstitutional.
The Sherman Act does not prohibit the Amex contract with the merchants because Ohio et al. have not shown anticompetitive effects on cardholders.
Only one of the Texas voting districts is an impermissible racial gerrymander.
The Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction and judgeship in the court martial system.
Double Jeopardy (5th Amendment) does not prohibit the second trial against Currier because Currier agreed to split his case into two trials.