Opinion of the Court — Advance Capital, Inc. v. Riehle

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 13, 2002
Case: Advance Capital, Inc. v. Riehle
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

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

MEMORANDUM ** Christopher and Paula Riehle appeal pro se the district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court order denying a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of $17,181 in debts the Riehles owed to Advance Capital, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review for clear error the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and de novo its legal conclusions. Allred v. Kennerley (In re Kennerley), 995 F.2d 145, 146 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not err by finding that the debt in question resulted from a willful and malicious injury and therefore was not subject to discharge. See Bino v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 197 F.3d 997, 1000 (9th Cir.1999). The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact with regard to determining the amount of the debt which was nondischargeable are not clearly erroneous. See Fisher v. Roe, 263 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2001). The bankruptcy court did not err by refusing to appoint counsel for the Riehles. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). The Riehles’ contention that they were denied a jury trial, in violation of the Seventh Amendment, lacks merit. See American Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Hashemi (In re …

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