In re Bailey

56 Citing cases

  1. Bavely v. Daniels (In re Daniels)

    No. 18-13837 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2022)

    But "a discharge is a privilege, and not a right, and should only benefit an honest debtor." CM Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007). Section 727(a)(3) therefore aims "to make the privilege of discharge dependent upon a true presentation of the debtor's financial affairs" by requiring the debtor to supply the trustee and creditors with "dependable information on which they can rely in tracing a debtor's financial history." Lubman v. Hall (In re Hall), 174 B.R. 210, 214 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1994) (first quoting Dominick & Dominick, Inc. v. Baxter (In re Baxter), 96 B.R. 58, 60 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1989); then quoting Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1230 (3d Cir. 1992)).

  2. Bavely v. Daniels (In re Daniels)

    641 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022)   Cited 10 times
    Applying Ohio law

    But "a discharge is a privilege, and not a right, and should only benefit an honest debtor." CM Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Bailey (In re Bailey) , 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007). Section 727(a)(3) therefore aims "to make the privilege of discharge dependent upon a true presentation of the debtor's financial affairs" by requiring the debtor to supply the trustee and creditors with "dependable information on which they can rely in tracing a debtor's financial history."

  3. United States Tr. v. Pack

    2:23-cv-00673 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 21, 2023)

    Still, “a discharge is a privilege, and not a right, and should only benefit an honest debtor.” CM Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007) (citing In re Juzwiak, 89 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1996)).

  4. In re Ketema

    Case No. 09-59136, Adv. Pro. No. 10-2321 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2011)

    As an objection to discharge, the statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor. CM Temp. Servs. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007). However, discharge from debt is a privilege, and not a right, and should only benefit the honest debtor.

  5. McDermott v. Ketema (In re Ketema)

    Case No. 09-59136 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Jul. 28, 2011)

    As an objection to discharge, the statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor. CM Temp. Servs. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007). However, discharge from debt is a privilege, and not a right, and should only benefit the honest debtor.

  6. Peterson Transp. v. Curtis (In re Curtis)

    Case No. 14-33094 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2016)

    The burden of proving a claim under § 727(a)(3) first rests with the party objecting to discharge to establish a prima facie case showing that the Debtor failed to keep adequate records from which the debtor's financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained. United States Trustee v. Kandel (In re Kandel), 2015 WL 1207014, at *6 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio March 13, 2015); CM Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007). This Bankruptcy Code provision does not require perfect or even complete records but, instead, requires the debtor to provide creditors with "'enough information to ascertain the debtor's financial condition and track his financial dealings with substantial completeness and accuracy for a reasonable period past to present.'" Turoczy Bonding Co. v. Strbac (In re Strbac), 235 B.R. 880, 882 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1999) (further citation omitted).

  7. Agin v. Stella (In re Stella)

    470 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)

    Section 727(a)(3) provides that “[t]he court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless ... the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor's financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case [.]” 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) (emphasis supplied). As the court observed in In re Bailey, 375 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2007), “[a]s an exception to discharge and consistent with the overriding goal of providing a ‘fresh start’ to honest bankruptcy debtors, the statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the Debtor.” Id. at 415 (citing Haynes v. Carter (In re Carter), 274 B.R. 481, 484 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2002) (citations omitted)).

  8. Astro Building Supplies, Inc. v. Slavik

    433 B.R. 651 (E.D. Mich. 2010)   Cited 10 times
    In Astro Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. Slavik, 433 B.R. 651 (E.D. Mich. 2010), a contractor filed for Chapter 7 relief and a supplier brought an adversary proceeding against to except a debt from discharge on a fiduciary defalcation theory.

    Id. The standard for denial of discharge under § 727(a)(3) was explained by the bankruptcy court in CM Temporary Services, Inc. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2007). Section 727(a)(3) has been interpreted to apply a shifting burden of proof.

  9. In re Shekerjian

    Case No. 09-14708 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Even considering this issue as presented by DAN in this appeal, DAN's arguments regarding the Schedule F disclosure fail for the same reasons as does DAN's "proof of claim" argument discussed supra. DAN relies upon In re Bailey, 375 B.R. 410 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007) for the proposition that a scheduled debt constitutes prima facie evidence of DAN's status as a creditor. As with In re Kilroy and In re Moreau, discussed supra, DAN's reliance upon In re Bailey is similarly without merit — In re Bailey held that "a creditor on a disputed debt has standing to prosecute a § 727 cause of action."

  10. Upper Cumberland Islamic Soc'y v. Mayer (In re Mayer)

    3:20-bk-31861-SHB (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2023)

    - bears the burden of proving that Defendant has failed to keep material records. Bavely v. Daniels (In re Daniels), 641 B.R. 165, 184 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022) (citing CM Temp. Servs. v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 375 B.R. 410, 415-16 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007)). If Plaintiff satisfies this initial requirement, the burden shifts to Defendant, who must justify his lack of records.