John King v. Renee Blackman, et al, No. 10-11232 (11th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-11232 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-01108-JFG, Bankruptcy No. BK-07-05364-TBB-7 In Re: John A. King Debtor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JOHN A. KING, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant. versus RENEE BLACKMAN, H. SLOAN BLACKMAN, MISTY D. SHEPHARD, llllllllllllllllllllDefendants-Appellees, _______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (November 8, 2010) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: John King appeals pro se a judgment in favor of Renee Blackman, Sloan Blackman, and Misty Shephard in their adversary proceeding against King in his bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy court ruled that King s debts were nondischargeable because he made false oaths about the existence of financial records and about his examination and approval of a statement of financial affairs and schedules accompanying his petition for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4). We affirm. King argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he made false oaths, but we disagree. King s statement of financial affairs and schedules omitted assets and interests in entities and trusts that were relevant to determining his financial condition. See Swicegood v. Ginn, 924 F.2d 230, 232 (11th Cir. 1999); Chalik v. Moorefield, 748 F.2d 616, 618 20 (11th Cir. 1984). The bankruptcy court was entitled to find that King s omissions were intentional and to discredit his evasive and inconsistent testimony. See Chalik, 748 F.2d at 619. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by denying King a discharge. King makes two other complaints about the adversary proceeding, but both complaints are meritless. First, King argues that the bankruptcy court omitted 2 findings of fact from its written order, but the bankruptcy court made extensive oral findings of fact during the adversarial hearing. King cites no authority that requires a bankruptcy court to make its findings in a written order. Second, King complains that the bankruptcy judge was biased, but King failed to raise that objection in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy judge had the discretion to question King, comment on the evidence and his knowledge of other proceedings that related to King s petition for bankruptcy, and admonish King to respond to questions. See Fed. R. Evid. 614(b); Hanson v. Waller, 888 F.2d 806, 812 13 (11th Cir. 1989) (discussing Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 1979)). The record does not support King s argument that the bankruptcy judge abused that discretion. The judgment in favor of the Blackmans and Shephard is AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.