Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Khalil v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.

578 F.3d 1167

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-08-24
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating “[t]he BAP’s published opinion is a correct statement of the applicable law, and we expressly approve of that opinion by our decision today”
  • “A false statement or an omission in the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules or statement of financial affairs can constitute a false oath.”
  • “Fraudulent intent may be inferred from a pattern of behavior.”
  • expressly adopting the 26 BAP’s statement of applicable law
  • expressly adopting the BAP’s 22 statement of the law
  • expressly adopting BAP’s statement of applicable law
  • adopting the BAP’s statement of applicable law

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Khalil v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
74 opinions
IN RE KHALIL,578 F.3d 1167(9th Cir. 2009)
In re Eyad KHALIL, Debtor, Eyad Khalil, Appellant, v. Developers Surety
Indemnity Co., Appellee.
No. 07-56819.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 6, 2009.fn*
Filed August 24, 2009.
Page 1168
Mark M. Sharf, Sharf Law Firm, Encino, CA, for the appellant.

Andrew K. Mauthe, Irvine, CA, for the appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Klein, Pappas and Bardwil, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding. BAP Nos. CC-07-1164-KPaBa, CC-07-1171-KPaBa, Bankruptcy No. SA 05-12795-ES, Adv. No. SA 05-01621-ES.
Before HARRY PREGERSON and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge.fn**
FOGEL, District Judge:
Bankruptcy debtor Eyad Khalil ("Khalil") appeals a published decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which affirmed a judgment of the bankruptcy court in favor of creditor Developers Surety and Indemnity Company ("DSI").See Khalil v. Developers Sur. Indem. Co.(In re Khalil),379 B.R. 163(9th Cir. BAP 2007). We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.

We review decisions of the BAPde novo. Hanf v. Summers (Inre Summers),332 F.3d 1240,1242(9th Cir. 2003). We review the bankruptcy court's conclusions of lawde novoand its findings of fact for clear error.Id.

DSI brought an adversary proceeding to prevent the discharge of certain debts related to Khalil's construction business. After a bench trial before the bankruptcy court, judgment was entered in favor of DSI and discharge was denied pursuant to11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4), which provides for the denial of a discharge of debt where a creditor shows that a debtor "knowingly and fraudulently" made a false oath or account during the bankruptcy proceeding. The BAP affirmed, holding that while evidence of recklessness alone will not satisfy the intent requirement of § 727(a)(4), evidence of recklessness may be combined with other circumstantial evidence to prove fraudulent intent.Khalil,379 B.R. at 177.

The BAP's published opinion is a correct statement of the applicable law, and we expressly approve of that opinion by our decision today. We also have reviewed the record independently and conclude that there was substantial circumstantial evidence of Khalil's fraudulentPage 1169intent. Fraudulent intent may be inferred from a pattern of behavior.Devers v. Sheridan (In re Devers),759 F.2d 751,754(9th Cir. 1985). The denial of discharge was proper.AFFIRMED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P.34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. ↩
  2. The Honorable Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩