DCFS Trust v. Goldstein

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 05-01036 Doc71 Filed 08/24/05 Entered 08/24/05 13:56:51 Desc Main

Document Pagei1of3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

In re
NEIL GOLDSTEIN, Chapter 7 |
NEIL G Case No. 04-18873-RS

Debtor
DCFS TRUST,

Plaintiff

Adversary Proceeding

y. No. 05-1036-RS$
NEIL. GOLDSTEIN,

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION

The Debtor seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his motion for summary
judgment on three grounds; and, in the allernative, he secks clarification of the Court's rulings.
Tor the reasons set forth below, the Court now denies reconsideration and clarifies its rulings.

The Debtor’s first basis for reconsideration concerns an alleged lack of evidence to

support Plaintiff's burden of proof as to willfulness under § 523(a)(6), which requires proof of

intent to injure. | find no cause for reconsideration, The Court must resoive every possible

inference and question of credibility in favor of the non-moving party. ‘There exists evidence that

the Debtor had possession of the vehicle and has not returned it, These facts by themselves
permit a finding of control and an inference of intent to injure. The Debtor alleges that his
failure to return was the result of additional facts that demonstrate that he acted in good faith, lost
control of the vehicle under innocent circumstances, und lacked intent to injure, but he bears at

least an initial burden as to these facts (though certainly not the ultimate burden on the issue of

U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 05-01036 Doc71 Filed 08/24/05 Entered 08/24/05 13:56:51 Desc Main
Document Page 2of3

willtulness). Given the specifics of his story--including the furtive nature of the third-parties
that the Debtor contends he dealt with (Blondie Nelson and U.S. AutoManagement, neither of
whom is on Debtor's witness list), the fact that both appear to have defaulted on financial
obligations ostensibly intended to protect the Plaintiff, the fact that the vehicle itself is missing,
the evigence that the Debtor entered into these alleged arrangements without the permission or
even knowledge of the Plaintiff and with knowledge (evidenced by his signature on the lease) of
his obligation not to assign or sublease the vehicle---the Court was and is satisfied that its
credibility should not be assumed for purposes of summary judgment, and therefore that there
remains a genuine issue of material fact, requiring denial of summary judgment.

Moreover, even if Rule 56 permitted summary judgment here, prudence would still
counsel in favor of deciding this matter on a fully-developed record. The litigation has becn
especially contentious; the Debtor’s detense is an unusual one; and, whether the count under §
523(a)(6) remains in issue or not, the Court will have to make factual findings on related issues
that necessitate substantial inquiry into the tacts that are the subject matter of this count. Unless
all matters are reserved for judgment on the same factual record and findings, there would exist a
tisk of inconsistent findings and rulings. Aff these factors, individually and as a group, support a
decision to decide this matter on a fully-developed record.

As for the count under § 523(a)(2), the Court agrees that the Plaintiff did not address that
count in its response to the Debtor’s motion for summary judgment. However, in view of the
fact that it rests on largely the same facts as form the basis of the count under subsection (a}(6),
there is little to be gained by making a dispositive ruling at this juncture. This is especially true
where the record is not devoid of evidence that the Debtor arguably proceeded under faise

pretenses by not keeping the Plaintiff informed of matters he was obligated to keep it mlormed

ha

Case 05-01036 Doc71 Filed 08/24/05 Entered 08/24/05 13:56:51 Desc Main
Document Page 3of3

of, and that the Plaintiff has been injured as a result.’ 1 make no ruling here as to whether the
evidence supports a cause of action under § 523(a)(2), or even as to whether this count remains
in issue; my earlier ruling simply put these questions over to another day.

The Debtor’s third basis for reconsideration is that the Court introduced an injury element
that is irrelevant to Debtor’s motion. ‘This is not cause for reconsideration. The Court's
comment on injury was directed to the Plaintiff's motion, not the Debtor's, and does not affect

thal validity of the order denying the Debtor’s motion.

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or

Clarification is DENDED as to reconsideration allowed as to clarification; the Court’s rulings on

the Debtor’s motion for summary judgment are clarified as set forth above.

Date: Meyead ¥ 00S Volot acti

Roberi Somma
United States Bankruptcy Judg

a)

ec: Joseph Bodoff, Esq., for Debtor
Douglas Rose, Esq., for Plaintiff’

' Regardless of whether the Plaintiff has responded to a motion for summary judgment,
the Court is obligated to determine whether the motion is well-founded.

3
3