Mariza Suarez v. Tracy Barrett
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dennis v. McDaniel (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon 2023)
- In re: HAROLD W. DICKENS, III, Dba LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD W. DICKENS, III, Dba LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD W. DICKENS, III, P.C. (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2022)
- Perlenfein, Inc., dba B&R Auto Wrecking v. Smith (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon 2022)
- Ford, Jr. v. Landon (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma 2020)
- Vision W., Inc. v. Catalan (In re Catalan) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2018)
- Sturgeon-Garcia v. Cagno (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2017)
- In re: Richard Jay Blaskey (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2016)
- In re: Richard Jay Blaskey (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2016)
- Westbury Village Ass'n v. Zweifel (In re Zweifel) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio 2016)
- McCallum v. Pixley (In re Pixley) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan 2014)
- Field v. Hughes-Birch (In re Hughes-Birch) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts 2013)
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
MEMORANDUM **
Mariza Suarez, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appel *833 late Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment, following a trial, determining that Suarez’s debt to Tracy Barrett is nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 528(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt in question resulted from a willful and malicious injury and therefore was not subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). See Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. (In re Ormsby), 591 F.3d 1199, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of § 523(a)(6)); Papadakis v. Zelis (In re Zelis), 66 F.3d 205, 208-09 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming bankruptcy court’s determination that debtor’s conduct resulting in state court’s award of sanctions was willful and malicious and therefore sanctions were nondischargeable).
Suarez’s contentions concerning the propriety of the state court contempt ruling are unpersuasive.
Suarez’s motion to strike Attachment 5A from Barrett’s excerpts of record, filed on April 25, 2011, is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *833 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.