Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

In Re Thomas M. Kelly, Debtor. Chris Okoye v. Thomas M. Kelly

In Re Thomas M. Kelly, Debtor. Chris Okoye v. Thomas M. Kelly, 100 F.3d 110 (9th Cir. 1996)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1996-11-25
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • state court judgment finding debtor liable for legal malpractice only amounted to a finding of negligence, therefore it was not properly used to find malicious and willful injury based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel
  • “a party [seeking the application 25 of issue preclusion] must introduce a record sufficient to reveal 26 the controlling facts and pinpoint the exact issues litigated in 27 the prior action”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In Re Thomas M. Kelly, Debtor. Chris Okoye v. Thomas M. Kelly. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
79 opinions
IN RE KELLY,100 F.3d 110(9th Cir. 1996)
In re THOMAS M. KELLY, Debtor.
CHRIS OKOYE, Appellant, v. THOMAS M. KELLY, Appellee.
No. 95-15931
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted September 19, 1996 — San Francisco, California
Filed November 25, 1996
William A. Kent, Irvine, CA, for appellant.

Howard S. Nevins and Thomas Griffin, Jr., Hefner, Stark Marois, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Volinn, Ollason, and Russell, Judges Presiding

BAP No. EC-94-02064-RoV
Before: Robert R. Beezer and David R. Thompson, Circuit Judges, and Helen Gillmor, District Judge.Page 111
[1] ORDER
[2] On August 30, 1994, the bankruptcy court entered an order that a state court judgment debt owed by the debtor/appellee Thomas M. Kelly to the appellant Chris Okoye was nondischargeable under11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the BAP), in a published opinion, reversed. Kelly v. Okoye (In re Kelly),182 B.R. 255(Bankr. 9th Cir. 1995).

[3] The issue in this appeal is whether collateral estoppel applies to preclude Kelly from asserting, in Okoye's adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court, that the state court judgment debt did not result from any willful or malicious injury to Okoye.

[4] We hold that collateral estoppel is inapplicable, and affirm the BAP's reversal of the bankruptcy court's judgment for the reasons given by the BAP in its published opinion.

[5] The BAP is AFFIRMED. The judgment of the bankruptcy court is REVERSED. This case is remanded to the BAP for remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with the BAP's published opinion.Page 653