McDermott v. Dunne (In re Dunne)

2 Citing cases

  1. Elite Constr. Design Mgmt. v. Kerschner

    2:23-cv-820 (S.D. Ohio May. 22, 2024)

    The Sixth Circuit in Gandy also rejected the debtor's argument that the false statements were not material because they would not affect his Chapter 7 eligibility, noting that the “test for determining whether a false oath is material is not so narrow.” Id. at 354. Instead, the court found his false oaths to be “plainly material,” noting their “relationship to the [debtor's] business transactions” and their potential impact on “the rights of . . . creditors to file a motion to dismiss, as well as whether a presumption of abuse arose in the case and whether [the debtor] was required to complete additional paperwork.” Id.; see also In re Dunne, No. 1533831, 2017 WL 1190611, at *4-5 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio Mar. 29, 2017) (rejecting the debtor's “no harm, no foul” argument regarding her misrepresentations as to her marital status, finding the statement to be material even if it would not have changed anything because “it interfered with the Trustee and UST's ability to determine the proper handling of the bankruptcy case based on facts, rather than fiction”).

  2. Newton v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham)

    3:20-bk-32285-SHB (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Aug. 18, 2022)

    Neither the trustee nor the creditors should be required to engage in a laborious tug-of-war to drag the simple truth into the glare of daylight. McDermott v. Dunne (In re Dunne), Case No. 15-33831, Adv. Proc. No. 16-3105, 2017 WL 1190611, at *2-3 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio Mar. 29, 2017) (quoting Boroff v. Tully (In re Tully), 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir. 1987) (citations omitted)).