Opinion
Bankruptcy 20-00137-TLM Adversary Proceeding 20-06015-JDP
08-18-2021
In Re: Rinaldo E. Hunt and Maile N. Hunt, Debtors. v. Rinaldo E. Hunt and Maile N. Hunt, Defendants. Dennis Lin and Alisha Lin, Plaintiffs,
AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Jim D. Pappas U.S. Bankruptcy Judge.
On August 18, 2021, this Court entered a Memorandum of Decision in this adversary proceeding. Dkt. No. 60. To correct minor errors therein, that Memorandum of Decision is hereby amended as follows:
The second sentence of the first full paragraph on page 12 of the Memorandum of Decision reads:
In other words, to except a debt from discharge, a creditor must prove the same elements under both Code sections, but § 523(a)(2)(A) requires that the subject misrepresentation must not concern the Defendant's financial condition and is contained in a writing requirement, whereas § 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written misrepresentation about a debtor's financial condition.
That sentence is hereby amended to read as follows:
In other words, to except a debt from discharge, a creditor must prove the same elements under both Code sections, but § 523(a)(2)(A) requires that the subject misrepresentation must not concern the Defendant's financial condition and does not contain a writing requirement, whereas § 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written misrepresentation about a debtor's financial condition.
In addition, the fourth sentence of the first full paragraph on page 15 of the Memorandum of Decision reads:
To bring them within the ambit of § 523(a)(s)(A), Plaintiffs insist that the representations made in Rinaldo's text messages are not respecting Defendants' financial condition, but were, rather, just "promises."
That sentence is hereby amended as follows:
To bring them within the ambit of § 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiffs insist that the representations made in Rinaldo's text messages are not respecting Defendants' financial condition, but were, rather, just "promises."
The Memorandum of Decision, in all other respects, remains the same. Because the amendments described above do not impact the outcome of the Court's decision as set forth therein, the accompanying Order, Dkt. No. 61, need not be, and is not, amended.