Fourth, as the following discussion will detail, the evidence demonstrates that the concealment was done with an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud either a creditor or officer of the estate. Courts have recognized the difficulty in proving actual fraudulent intent by direct evidence, but have held that such intent may be inferred " ‘from the facts and circumstances of the debtor's conduct.’ " Helena Chemical Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond), 429 B.R. 263, 304 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010) (quoting In re Korte, 262 B.R. at 473 ). Such facts and circumstances are most commonly referred to as "badges of fraud."
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2). Section 727(a)(2) is fundamental to the concept that a debtor's chapter 7 discharge is granted upon the condition that he has disclosed all of his assets and made them available for distribution. Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond), 429 B.R. 263, 302 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010). A creditor objecting to a debtor's discharge under § 727(a)(2) has the burden of proving four elements by a preponderance of the evidence- (1) that the act complained of was done within one year prior to the date the petition was filed, or after the date the petition was filed;
Turning now to CFS's claim under § 523(a)(4), "[t]o establish a claim for relief under [that] section, [CFS] must prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that a fiduciary relationship existed [between Lamb and CFS]; and (2) that [Lamb] committed fraud or defalcation in the course of the fiduciary relationship." In re Richmond, 429 B.R. 263, 301 (Bkrtcy. E.D. Ark. 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted but quoting Jafarpour v. Shahrokhi (In re Shahrokhi), 266 B.R. 702, 707 (8th Cir. BAP 2001)); see also Quaif Yang v. Qin (In re Qin), 285 B.R. 292, 296-97 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2002). "The definition of 'fiduciary' for purposes of § 523(a)(4) is a question of federal law."
(5) the statement related materially to the debtor's bankruptcy.Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond ), 429 B.R. 263, 307 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010). The first element under § 727(a)(4)(A) requires that the debtors made a statement under oath.
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2). Section 727(a)(2) is fundamental to the concept that a debtor's chapter 7 discharge is granted upon the condition that he has disclosed all of his assets and made them available for distribution. Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond ), 429 B.R. 263, 302 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.2010). The party objecting to a debtor's discharge under § 727(a)(2) has the burden of proving four elements by a preponderance of the evidence
This list is similar to those cited in bankruptcy cases. See, e.g., Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond), 429 B.R. 263, 305 (Bankr. E.D. Ark.2010); Doeling v. O'Neill (In re O'Neill), 550 B.R. 482, 500 (Bankr. D.N.D. 2016); In re Huynh, 392 B.R. at 810.
(5) the statement related materially to the debtor's bankruptcy. Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond), 429 B.R. 263, 307 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010). The first element under § 727(a)(4)(A) requires that the debtor made a statement under oath.
" ‘Reasonable reliance can [ ] be demonstrated by showing that credit would not have been extended had accurate information been provided.’ " Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond) , 429 B.R. 263, 298 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010) (quoting Rosen's, Inc. v. Ghere (In re Ghere) , 393 B.R. 209, 217 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2008) ).
Decisions from courts in other jurisdictions that follow Walker and/or its "knew or should have known" standard, however, prove helpful. Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond ), 429 B.R. 263 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010) involved a creditor's demand for (among other things) a declaration of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A). The creditor had loaned money to one or more of the debtor's businesses, which the debtor's son managed.
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2). Section 727(a)(2) is fundamental to the concept that a debtor's chapter 7 discharge is granted upon the condition that the debtor has disclosed all of her assets and made them available for distribution. Helena Chem. Co. v. Richmond (In re Richmond ), 429 B.R. 263, 302 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010). A creditor objecting to a debtor's discharge under § 727(a)(2) has the burden of proving four elements by a preponderance of the evidence(1) that the act complained of was done within one year prior to the date the petition was filed, or after the date the petition was filed;