Khalil v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.
Cases that cite this one
75 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Crossroad Exchange, LLC v. Bhogal (United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California 2023)
- In re: Paul Denbeste and Melody Denbeste (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2012)
- In re: Olivier Francois P. Rigon AND Christine Hui Seoun Kwon (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2024)
- In re: FRANK DANIEL KRESOCK (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2021)
- In re: SEUNGHWAN JEONG AKA Seung Hwan Jeong and AMY PARK JEONG AKA Hyekyung Park (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2020)
- In re: Satya Devi Jagar (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2017)
- In re: Satya Devi Jagar (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2017)
- Schwarz v. Liechti (In re Liechti) (District Court, D. Montana 2017)
- In re: Jesus Bencomo (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2015)
- In re: Jesus Bencomo (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2015)
- In re: Tawni T.T. Nguyen (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2014)
- Hyun Suk Cho v. Seung Chan Park (In re Seung Chan Park) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland 2012)
- In re: Clifton Sanders AND Tashawn Sanders (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2026)
- NWBF LLC v. Maksimchuk (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington 2025)
- Seida, Jr. v. Baldwin (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon 2025)
- Seida, Jr. v. Baldwin (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon 2025)
- In re: Rodrigo Aguirre (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2025)
- In re: Lanny Jay Dugar (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2024)
- Centennial Bank v. Kane (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2024)
- Odyssey Reinsurance Company v. Nagby (District Court, D. Nevada 2024)
- Lashinsky v. Holman (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico 2024)
- RGW Construction, Inc. v. Lucido (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California 2023)
- In re: Finnian Osakpamwan Ebuehi and Elizabeth Olohirere Ebuehi (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2022)
- In re: Sajid A. Ravasia and Debra J. Ravasia (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2021)
- Schindler v. Milliron (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Alaska 2021)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Bankruptcy debtor Eyad Khalil (“Khal-il”) appeals a published decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which affirmed a judgment of the bankruptcy court in favor of creditor Developers Surety and Indemnity Company (“DSI”). See Khalil v. Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. (In re Khalil), 379 B.R. 163 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.
We review decisions of the BAP de novo. Hanf v. Summers (In re Summers), 332 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2003). We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Id.
DSI brought an adversary proceeding to prevent the discharge of certain debts related to Khalil’s construction business. After a bench trial before the bankruptcy court, judgment was entered in favor of DSI and discharge was denied pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4), which provides for the denial of a discharge of debt where a creditor shows that a debtor “knowingly and fraudulently” made a false oath or account during the bankruptcy proceeding. The BAP affirmed, holding that while evidence of recklessness alone will not satisfy the intent requirement of § 727(a)(4), evidence of recklessness may be combined with other circumstantial evidence to prove fraudulent intent. Khalil, 379 B.R. at 177.
The BAP’s published opinion is a correct statement of the applicable law, and we expressly approve of that opinion by our decision today. We also have reviewed the record independently and conclude that there was substantial circumstantial evidence of Khalil’s fraudu *1169 lent intent. Fraudulent intent may be inferred from a pattern of behavior. Devers v. Sheridan (In re Devers), 759 F.2d 751, 754 (9th Cir. 1985). The denial of discharge was proper.
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.