Khalil v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025In re: Rodrigo Aguirre 9th Cir. BAP
- 2025NWBF LLC v. Maksimchuk Bankr. W.D. Wash.
- 2025Seida, Jr. v. Baldwin Bankr. D. Or.
- 2024Lashinsky v. Holman Bankr. D.N.M.
- 2024Centennial Bank v. Kane N.D. Cal.
- 2024In re: Olivier Francois P. Rigon AND Christine Hui Seoun Kwon 9th Cir. BAP
- 2024Odyssey Reinsurance Company v. Nagby D. Nev.
- 2024In re: Lanny Jay Dugar 9th Cir. BAP
- 2023Crossroad Exchange, LLC v. Bhogal Bankr. C.D. Cal.
- 2023RGW Construction, Inc. v. Lucido Bankr. N.D. Cal.
Cites 2 statutes
- Discharge
- Appeals
Cites 3 cases
- Khalil v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co. (In re Khalil)
- Devers v. Bank of Sheridan, Montana
- Hanf v. Summers
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In re Eyad KHALIL, Debtor, Eyad Khalil, Appellant, v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co., Appellee.
Judges
- Before HARRY PREGERSON and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge.
Attorneys
- Mark M. Sharf, Sharf Law Firm, Enci-no, CA, for the appellant.
- Andrew K. Mauthe, Irvine, CA, for the appellee.
Bankruptcy debtor Eyad Khalil (“Khal-il”) 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.
We review decisions of the BAP de novo. Hanf v. Summers (In re Summers), 332 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir.2003). We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and 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 to 11 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 fraudulent intent. 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.