Fin. Servs. Vehicle Trust v. Barlaam (In re Barlaam)

3 Citing cases

  1. Aurora Commercial Corp. v. Lenox Financial Mortgage Corp.

    1:13-cv-01489-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

    ; In re Cacciatori, 465 B.R. 545, 554 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2012) (borrower was not reckless where she represented the gross income from her business as "Applicant's Gross Income" and "the application form[] fail[ed] to specify the particular income metric a self-employed individual was supposed to use in filling in the blank....") but cf., In re Barlaam, 2012 WL 3288725 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (borrower's "belief that 'Gross Annual' would include his company's gross revenue is patently unreasonable. Gross revenues (i.e. revenues before deducting expenses) are irrelevant to a borrower's ability to make loan payments").

  2. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Adesanya (In re Adesanya)

    Bankruptcy No. 18-17260-AMC (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Listing out the elements of false representation, false pretenses, and actual fraud

    Statements regarding employment history and salaries have been considered statements respecting a debtor's financial condition. See Fin. Servs. Vehicle Trust v. Barlaam (In re Barlaam), Bankr. No. 1:11-bk-13387-GM, Adv. No. 1:11-ap-01402-GM, 2012 WL 3288725, at *6 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2012); Free At Last Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Franklin-Graham (In re Franklin-Graham), Bankr. No. 05-91520-MGD, Adv. No. 05-06585, 2008 WL 7842108, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2008).

  3. Glass v. Brown (In re Brown)

    Case No. 16-26371-B-7 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017)

    It is true that in some circumstances a plaintiff who is not the originally-defrauded creditor, and thus who did not rely on the debtor's written misrepresentations, can satisfy § 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) and state an actionable § 523(a)(2)(B) claim. But that typically is when the plaintiff is the assignee of the original creditor who was defrauded and who initially relied on the debtor's written misrepresentations. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2009); see also In re Barlaam, 2012 WL 3288725, *5 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2012). The complaint here does not allege that the plaintiff is the lender's assignee. In fact, inasmuch as it was the plaintiff who personally secured a release of the deed of trust on the Lodi Property it necessarily follows that the plaintiff would know if the lender assigned him any claim it had against the defendant arising out of the $262,000 loan and plaintiff would have at least mentioned any such assignment.