Lichtenstein v. Barbanel

Full title: STEVEN J. LICHTENSTEIN, Appellant, v. ROBERTA J. BARBANEL, Appellee

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville

Date published: Mar 20, 2006

Civil Action No. 3:05CV-462-H (W.D. Ky. Mar. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:05CV-462-H.

March 20, 2006

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN HEYBURN II, Chief Judge

Appellant, Steven J. Lichtenstein, M.D. ("Dr. Lichtenstein"), appeals the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Bankruptcy Court dated June 30, 2005, denying Dr. Lichtenstein's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(5). On appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, this Court applies the clearly erroneous standard for review of findings of fact and the de novo standard for review of questions of law. In re Gardner, 360 F.3d 551, 557 (6^th Cir. 2004).

It is fair to say that Dr. Lichtenstein does not object to any particular finding of law of the Bankruptcy Court. Nor does Dr. Lichtenstein object to any particular finding of fact. Dr. Lichtenstein does object to the conclusions that the Bankruptcy Court deduced from the findings of fact. In particular, Dr. Lichtenstein believes that he has fully explained all of his actions and that therefore none of the actions can be fairly seen to suggest fraud.

The Bankruptcy Court held a day long hearing at which time it heard Dr. Lichtenstein's testimony and reviewed all the documentary evidence related to the case. The Bankruptcy Court concluded based on its factual findings and its assessment of Dr. Lichtenstein's credibility that his actions contains sufficient fraudulent intent to warrant denial of his discharge in bankruptcy. In the absence of any attempt to suggest that the Bankruptcy Court's specific findings of fact were clearly erroneous, the Court is at a loss to determine that the Bankruptcy Court's deduction of fraud, nevertheless, is erroneous.

Dr. Lichtenstein's actions certainly could suggest fraud, depending on the conclusions one draws about his intent and motive. The Bankruptcy Court heard his testimony and has made a judgment about that intent and motive. This Court concludes that neither the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact nor its conclusion concerning fraudulent intent are in any respect clearly erroneous.

Being otherwise sufficiently advised,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court entered on June 30, 2005, is SUSTAINED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

This is a final and appealable order.