GE Money Bank v. Baker

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re:
JOANN BAKER,
Debtor.
Case No. 06-50958-MM
Chapter 7
The Hon. Marilyn Morgan
GE MONEY BANK, Adv. No. 06-5164
Plaintiff,
v. 	MEMORANDUM DECISION
FOLLOWING TRIAL
JOANN BAKER,
Defendant.
______________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and creditor, GE Money Bank, alleges that a $13,900 debt that debtor, Joann Baker,
owes to GE Money Bank is excepted from discharge under §523(a)(2) due to false representations that
debtor allegedly made while applying for an extension of credit. 	Having considered the evidence
adduced at trial and the arguments of counsel, the court concludes that GE Money Bank has not satisfied
its burden of proof and judgment is awarded in favor of Ms. Baker and against GE Money Bank.
The following constitutes
the order of the court. Signed January 22, 2008
Marilyn Morgan
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
January 22, 2008
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
BACKGROUND
Joann Baker is employed as a customer service representative with HSBC. In 2005, Ms. Baker
earned approximately $32,000 a year. Her stated income included compensation for overtime she had
worked throughout that year. Prior to November 2005, Ms. Baker had incurred credit card debt with
MBNA for approximately $13,900. In November 2005, GE Money Bank solicited Ms. Baker to open
a credit card account to consolidate her existing credit card debt at a lower interest rate of 16.24 percent
per annum. Attracted by the lower interest rate and the opportunity to consolidate her existing credit
card debt, Ms. Baker executed the standard GE Money Bank Credit Card Agreement. As a general
matter, to obtain a credit card account at GE Money Bank, an applicant completes an application and
the company conducts a background credit check. A background credit check typically reveals the
number, age and amount of outstanding accounts held by an applicant. Based on information provided
in the application, later verified by the company, and a review of her background credit check, GE
Money Bank offered Ms. Baker a credit card account and granted her a credit limit of $14,000 at an
initial interest rate of 16.24 percent per annum. The GE Money Bank Agreement also allowed her to
obtain cash advances up to the established credit limit. On December 12, 2005, Ms. Baker obtained a
cash advance from GE Money Bank in the amount of $13,900. GE Money Bank issued a check to Ms.
Baker which was made payable to MBNA.
As part of its regular business practice, GE Money Bank sends monthly statements to its
customers. The monthly statements reflect the closing date of the account statement, credit limit, annual
percentage rate, payments and credits, related fees and current balance. GE Money Bank sent, and Ms.
Baker received the following seven monthly statements:
! 	Following the closing date of December 13, 2005, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a
monthly statement reflecting a cash advance in the amount of $13,900, a minimum
payment due in the amount of $278.45, a transaction fee in the amount of $50 and a
finance charge in the amount of $12.37.
! 	Following the closing date of January 13, 2006, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a
monthly statement reflecting a prior payment and credit in the amount of $300, an
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 2 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
outstanding balance in the amount of $13,858.03 and a finance charge in the amount of
$195.66.
! 	Following the closing date of February 13, 2006, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a
monthly statement reflecting a prior payment and credit in the amount of $280, an
outstanding balance of $13,775.55 and a finance charge in the amount of $197.52.
! 	Following the closing date of March 13, 2006, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a
monthly statement reflecting a prior payment and credit in the amount of $280, an
outstanding balance in the amount of $13,672.55 and a finance charge in the amount of
$177.
! 	Following the closing date of April 13, 2006, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a monthly
statement reflecting a prior payment and credit in the amount of $280, an outstanding
balance in the amount of $13,589.80 and a finance charge in the amount of $197.25.
! 	Following the closing date of May 13, 2006, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a monthly
statement reflecting an outstanding balance in the amount of $13,689.13, a late fee in the
amount of $35 and a finance charge in the amount of $194.
! 	Following the closing date of June 13, 2006, GE Money Bank sent Ms. Baker a monthly
statement reflecting an outstanding balance in the amount of $13,818.80 and a past due
payment in the amount of $556.90.
In or around May 2006, Ms. Baker struggled with personal and health issues. Her boyfriend, who is her
young child’s father, moved out of their home causing her to cope with more debt than she had
expected. In addition, she was ill with a developing ulcer. Ms. Baker took a leave of absence from her
employment to address these personal hardships. After the four monthly payments to GE Money Bank
referenced above, Ms. Baker did not make any further payments on her account.
On June 6, 2006, Ms. Baker filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code
in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 	In schedule F of the bankruptcy
petition, Ms. Baker set forth the creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims against her. 	The
schedule reflects the following credit card debt: (1) Bank of America in the amount of $4,606.63; (2)
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 3 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
Citi Cards in the amount of $10,327.93; (3) GE Money, Inc. in the amount of $13,672.55; and (4) Wells
Fargo Card Services in the amount of $5,421.25.
DISCUSSION
I. 	GE Money Bank Has Not Proven the Necessary Elements of the Claim
Under §523(a)(2), a discharge under §727 does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt
for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained
by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s
or an insider’s financial condition. 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A). To establish that the extension of credit
owed by Ms. Baker is not dischargeable, GE Money Bank must show: (1) that Ms. Baker made a
representation; (2) that she knew, at the time, to be false; (3) that she made the representation with the
intention and purpose of deceiving GE Money Bank; (4) that GE Money Bank justifiably relied on the
representation; and (5) that GE Money Bank sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate
result of its reliance on the false representation. In re Diamond, 285 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2002). GE
Money Bank bears the burden of proving these elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan
v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 291, 111 S.Ct. 654 (1991).
A. 	GE Money Bank Has Not Shown the Requisite Intent
The Ninth Circuit has held that there are three essential inquiries in credit card cases: (1) did the
card holder fraudulently fail to disclose his intent not to repay the credit card debt; (2) did the card issuer
justifiably rely on a representation by the debtor; and (3) was the debt sought to be discharged
proximately caused by the first two elements. In re Anastas, 94 F.3d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996)(citing
to In re Eashai, 87 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996)).
In determining the intent of the credit card holder to repay the debt at the time the credit card was
used, the court may refer to the following 12 non-exclusive factors:
(1) length of time between the charges made and the filing of bankruptcy;
(2) whether or not an attorney has been consulted concerning the filing of bankruptcy before the
charges were made;
(3) the number of charges;
(4) the amount of charges;
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 4 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
(5) the debtor’s financial condition when the charges were made;
(6) whether the charges were above the credit limit;
(7) whether the debtor made multiple charges on the same day;
(8) whether the debtor was employed;
(9) the debtor’s prospects for employment;
(10) the debtor’s financial sophistication;
(11) whether there was a sudden change in debtor’s buying habits; and
(12) whether the purchases were made for luxuries or necessities.
Eashai, 87 F.3d at 1087-88.
When a credit card holder uses a card, he makes an implied representation that he intends to
repay the debt. In re Anastas, 94 F.3d at 1285. It is not the representation that the debtor has an ability
to repay the debt but that he intends to repay the debt. Id. 	In determining intent, the focus should not
be on whether the debtor was hopelessly insolvent at the time the charges were made. Id. “Rather, the
express focus must be solely on whether the debtor maliciously and in bad faith incurred credit card debt
with the intention of petitioning for bankruptcy and avoiding the debt.” Id. at 1286.
A view of the debtor’s overall financial condition may be a “necessary part of inferring whether
or not the debtor incurred the debt maliciously and in bad faith.” Id. However, “the hopeless state of
a debtor’s financial condition should never become a substitute for an actual finding of bad faith.” Id.
“The correct inquiry is whether the debtor either intentionally or with recklessness as to its truth or
falsity, made the representation that he intended to repay the debt.” Id.
GE Money Bank argues that the credit card debt incurred by Ms. Baker should not be
discharged for several reasons, including the relatively short period of time between the cash advance
and her filing for bankruptcy, and the significant credit card debt she had incurred from GE Money Bank
and from other credit cards. In light of a stated current monthly income of $1,565.20 which was listed
in Schedule I of her bankruptcy petition, GE Money Bank argues that Ms. Baker had to have known that
she could never repay the cash advance that equaled roughly nine months of income and make payments
to her other creditors.
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 5 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
However, GE Money Bank has not shown that Ms. Baker failed to disclose her intent not to
repay the credit card debt. Ms. Baker testified that she had intended to repay the debt that was incurred
in or around December 2005. She obtained the cash advance because “[GE Money Bank] offered [her]
a better and lower rate than MBNA had offered [her] and so [she] took them up on the better rate.” (Tr.
11:08:30). 	Indeed, Ms. Baker made four of the monthly payments to GE Money Bank. 	In In re
Anastas, the court found that a debtor who made six monthly payments did not behave as if he intended
to incur a debt without repayment. In re Anastas, 94 F.3d at 1287. Moreover, two events unexpectedly
impacted Ms. Baker’s finances: (1) in or around May 2006, her live-in boyfriend and child’s father
unexpectedly moved out of their home leaving her to cope with more debt than she had expected; and
(2) she suffered from a developing ulcer. Ms. Baker was forced to take a leave of absence in 2006
which further reduced her income. Despite her best efforts, Ms. Baker filed for bankruptcy in June
2006.
In viewing the facts at hand in light of the 12 non-exclusive factors cited in In re Eashai, Ms.
Baker incurred one charge in order to reduce the interest payment on her debt, she remained employed
at HSBC before and after she incurred the charge, and there is no evidence demonstrating any sudden
change in buying habits or any evidence of frivolous spending. Notwithstanding Ms. Baker’s lack of
financial sophistication or even her hopelessly insolvent condition, GE Money Bank has not shown that
she petitioned for bankruptcy to avoid the debt. As such, the record does not show that Ms. Baker did
not intend to repay the debt to GE Money Bank. I am persuaded that Ms. Baker sincerely intended to
pay her debt to GE Money Bank at the time she transferred her balance to GE Money Bank
B. 	Other Elements of the Claim
Because GE Money Bank has not shown the requisite intent, the court need not consider whether
the other elements of the claim have been met. Accordingly, judgment is awarded in favor of the Ms.
Baker.
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 6 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the debt incurred by Joann Baker is
dischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(2).
Good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.
* * * END OF ORDER * * *
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 7 of 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING TRIAL
Adv. No. 06-5164
SERVICE LIST
Stephen L. Chesney
Vanlochem & Chesney LLP
6565 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 422
Hollywood, CA 90028
Paul W. Moncrief
Paul Hart
Johnson and Moncrief, PLC
295 Main Street, Suite 600
Salinas, CA 93901
Case: 06-05164 Doc# 15 Filed: 01/22/08 Entered: 01/22/08 15:45:23 Page 8 of 8