Bankruptcy
In re: Douglas Alan BELL; In re: Susan Francis Bell, Debtors, U.S. Export, Inc., Appellant, v. Douglas Alan Bell; et al., Appellees
87 F. App'x 665·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·2004
Before KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re: Douglas Alan BELL; In re: Susan Francis Bell, Debtors, U.S. Export, Inc., Appellant, v. Douglas Alan Bell; et al., Appellees.
No. 02-56964.
BAP No. CC-01-01584-KMoJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2004.
Decided Feb. 10, 2004.
Vincent B. Moneymaker, Moneymaker & Moneymaker, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellant.
Douglas Alan Bell, pro se, Cathedral City, CA, Susan Francis Bell, pro se, Springville, UT, for Appellee.
Before KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY]
MEMORANDUM
Ample evidence supported the bankruptcy court’s determination that the Bells’ conduct did not constitute fraud within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and was not willful or malicious within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
Because no express trust was created independently of the alleged wrongdoing, the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that there was no fraud or defalcation while acting as a fiduciary within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) was not erroneous. See Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 796 (1986); Nahman v. Jacks (In re Jacks), 266 B.R. 728, 736 (9th Cir.BAP2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.