You are here

Opinion 288

Case Name: 

Irwin v. Arrowsmith (In re Arrowsmith)

Judge: 
Judge Boulden
Date: 
Jul-27-1989
Case Number(s): 
88PB-0699
Status: 

UNPUBLISHED

Body: 

Prior to filing his chapter 7 petition, debtor and his law partners accepted and guaranteed loans to their law firm by a firm client. Until the funds were received by the firm, debtor did not realize that client was the source of the funds. Client filed a complaint in debtor's bankruptcy seeking non-dischargeability of the loan debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (6). With respect to § 523(a)(6), client attempted to impute another law firm member's knowledge of the transaction details to debtor. However, the court held that non-dischargeability under that provision requires the debtor's actual knowledge and, therefore, imputed knowledge was insufficient to satisfy client's burden of proof. Regarding § 523(a)(4), the court held that client must establish that debtor was the trustee of an intentionally created trust, and had control of a trust res. The court concluded that client had failed to establish non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(4) as well, because no fiduciary capacity had been established, and the breach involved was not a breach of trust but, instead, was a breach of a contractual obligation to pay. Although debtor violated a disciplinary rule applicable to attorneys' business dealings with clients, client failed to establish both a clearly defined trust res and an intent to create a trust relationship.

Internal Ref: 
Opinion 288
File: