Owen et al v. Carney et al

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
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
STEVEN and WENDIE CARNEY, 	No. 08-10599
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
STEVEN and BECKY OWEN,
Plaintiff(s),
v. 	A.P. No. 08-1079
STEVEN and WENDIE CARNEY,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________________/
Memorandum on Motion for Summary Judgment
_________________
Plaintiffs Steven and Becky Owen allege that debtors and defendants Steven and Wendie
Carney wrongfully cut down some trees on the Owens’ property. Prior to bankruptcy, the Owens
obtained a state court default judgment for about $42,000.00. In this adversary proceeding, they allege
that the judgment is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Entered on Docket
May 15, 2009
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 08-01079 Doc# 23 Filed: 05/15/09 Entered: 05/15/09 17:01:10 Page 1 of 3

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
1The Carneys filed a rambling letter which the court rejected because it was not signed under
penalty of perjury.
2The state court judgment against the Carneys notes a credit for $21,800.00 paid by the
neighbors, and indication that they may have been primarily to blame.
2
The Owens have presented the court with a long list of supposed wrongs committed by the
Carneys, including failure to have a proper contractor’s license and failure to engage in mediation in
the state court. 	Most of these have nothing to do with dischargeability; the sole issue is whether the
Carneys willfully and maliciously cut down the trees. In order to prevail, the Owens must show that
the Carneys intended consequences of act, not simply act itself; debts arising from recklessly or
negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within compass of willful and malicious injury exception to
discharge. “Nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or
intentional act that leads to injury.” Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61-62, 118 S.Ct. 974 (1998).
The Owens argue that the Carneys are precluded from defending this action by the state court
judgment. However, there is nothing on the face of the judgment which evidences a finding of willful
and malicious conduct, such as punitive damages. The complaint in that action contained allegations
of negligence and breach of statute, which do not result in nondischargeable debts. Accordingly, the
Carneys are not precluded from defending this action.
The Owens argue that their declarations filed in support of their motion, which the Carneys, pro
se, have not validly opposed, 1 make their case independent from the default judgment. However, this
in not the case. The declaration of Becky Owen leads the court to infer that the Carneys were hired by
the Owens’ neighbor to cut down the trees, that the neighbor had failed to survey the property line, and
as a result the Carneys cut down trees which they were led to believe by the neighbor were not on the
Owens’ property.2 If this turns out to be the case, then the Owens are not entitled to a
nondischargeable judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be denied. Counsel for the
Owens may submit a form of order if an order is desired.
Case: 08-01079 Doc# 23 Filed: 05/15/09 Entered: 05/15/09 17:01:10 Page 2 of 3

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
3
Dated: May 15, 2009
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 08-01079 Doc# 23 Filed: 05/15/09 Entered: 05/15/09 17:01:10 Page 3 of 3