Butko v. Healy

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

March 21, 2003

Case

Butko v. Healy

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Chapter 11 debtor G. Patrick Healy appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order holding that two state court judgments in favor of appellees Richard Butko and Anne Butko were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, Worthington v. Gen. Motors Corp. (In re Claremont Acquisition Corp.), 113 F.3d 1029, 1031 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm. We reject Healy’s contention that the bankruptcy court erred by applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel to determine that the judgment debts owed to the Butkos were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4) (6). See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 , 285 n. 11, 111 S.Ct. 654 , 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991) (principles of collateral estoppel apply to discharge exception proceedings pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)); Bugna v. McArthur (In re Bugna), 33 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.1994) (the bankruptcy court is required to apply collateral estoppel when it is invoked by the creditor and all of the requisite elements are satisfied). Healy’s contention that collateral estoppel …

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.