United States v. Reid (In re Reid)

6 Citing cases

  1. Creal Dall., LLC v. Viciedo (In re Viciedo)

    612 B.R. 233 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    So, on this record, even if Creal had established a viable claim for conversion of the Missing Truck, who is to say that Creal's conversion claim has not already been satisfied.See , e.g. , In re Reid , 598 B.R. 674, 684 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2019). Accordingly, Creal also has not met its burden in establishing a claim for non-dischargeability under section 523(a)(6).

  2. GMT Mgmt. Grp. v. Belcher (In re Belcher)

    No. 22-56542-LRC (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sep. 24, 2024)

    In re Ferreira, 608 B.R. 300, 309 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 2019) ("Here, if the Debtor breached a fiduciary duty by failing to remit sales proceeds to ACE as ACE claimed, the Plaintiff would need to show the amount of the proceeds diverted."); In re Reid, 598 B.R. 674, 684 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2019) (holding that the debt to be declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) was not the total amount owed under a promissory note but rather the value of the collateral at the time of a sale); In re Viciedo, 612 B.R. 233, 241-42 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2020) ("In addition, at best, Creal's claim for willful and malicious collateral conversion is limited to the value of the Missing Truck.")

  3. First Bank of Linden v. Gunter (In re Gunter)

    CASE NO. 19-80562-CRJ-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Feb. 12, 2021)

    Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that the Bank failed to establish that the Defendant acted with specific intent to cause economic injury to the Bank, or that he thought or knew injury was substantially certain to result from the sale of the items of collateral. United States of America v. Reid (In re Reid), 598 B.R. 674 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2019)(Oldshue, J.). c. Malice

  4. Kapitus Servicing v. Polk (In re Polk)

    Case No. 18-30913-JPS (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Kern v. Taylor (In re Taylor), 551 B.R. 506, 521 (Bankr.M.D.Ala. 2016) (citation omitted). See United States v. Reid (In re Reid), 598 B.R. 674, 681 (Bankr.S.D.Ala. 2019); Jones v. Hall (In re Hall), 295 B.R. 877, 882 (Bankr.W.D.Ark. 2003). Accordingly, for Kapitus to prevail on its § 523(a)(4) claim, it first must show that Debtor appropriated Kapitus' property.

  5. Kapitus Servicing v. Polk (In re Polk)

    Case No. 18-30913-JPS (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Dec. 19, 2019)

    Kern v. Taylor (In reTaylor), 551 B.R. 506, 521 (Bankr.M.D.Ala. 2016) (citation omitted). See United States v. Reid (In re Reid), 598 B.R. 674, 681 (Bankr.S.D.Ala. 2019); Jones v. Hall (In re Hall), 295 B.R. 877, 882 (Bankr.W.D.Ark. 2003). Accordingly, for Kapitus to prevail on its § 523(a)(4) claim, it must show that Debtor appropriated Kapitus' property.

  6. Fid. Bank v. Jimenez (In re Jimenez)

    608 B.R. 322 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Kern v. Taylor (In re Taylor), 551 B.R. 506, 521 (Bankr.M.D.Ala. 2016) (citation omitted). See United States v. Reid (In re Reid), 598 B.R. 674, 681 (Bankr.S.D.Ala. 2019) ; Jones v. Hall (In re Hall), 295 B.R. 877, 882 (Bankr.W.D.Ark.2003).Defendants contend that Plaintiff's embezzlement claim under § 523(a)(4) must fail because Plaintiff has failed to show that its property was embezzled.