Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellants, William J. and Nancy J. Paterson, challenged the district court's affirmation of a bankruptcy court ruling that a corporate loan was excepted from discharge due to fraudulent representations. The Patersons were found to have intentionally made false statements regarding the loan's security, upon which Plaza Associates reasonably relied. The appellate court reviewed the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court de novo and assessed the factual findings for clear error, ultimately agreeing with the lower court's determination of non-dischargeability. The appellants argued that Mr. Paterson's medical condition impacted his intent, that Mrs. Paterson did not make false representations, that written misrepresentations were absent, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. However, these arguments did not persuade the court, and the ruling was affirmed. The decision is noted as not suitable for publication or citation in the circuit, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Bankruptcy Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was found unpersuasive and did not impact the court's decision to affirm the bankruptcy court's ruling.
Reasoning: The appeal arguments presented by the Patersons, including ... claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by Richard Sanders, are found unpersuasive.
Exception from Discharge Due to Fraudsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that a loan obtained by the appellants' corporation was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy due to fraudulent misrepresentations made by the appellants.
Reasoning: The court agrees with the bankruptcy court's determination that the loan was non-dischargeable because the Patersons intentionally made false representations regarding the loan's security, which Plaza Associates relied upon reasonably.
Review Standard for Bankruptcy Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo and evaluated the factual findings for clear error.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d) and reviews the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo while evaluating factual findings for clear error.