BRENDA WHINERY V. WILLIAM AUBREY, No. 11-15873 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In the Matter of: LODGEBUILDER, INC., BRENDA MOODY WHINERY, Creditor Trustee for Fort Defiance Housing Corporation, Inc., No. 11-15873 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01971-PMPPAL MEMORANDUM * Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. TRUSTEE, Trustee - Appellee, WILLIAM AUBREY; BRENDA B. TODD, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. William Aubrey and Brenda B. Todd appeal pro se from the district court s order affirming the bankruptcy court s order determining that their debt to Fort Defiance Housing Corp. was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court s determinations, Leichty v. Neary, (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt in question was nondischargeable because a prior decision between the parties necessarily decided that the money at issue was obtained by false pretenses and that Aubrey and Todd inflicted willful and malicious injury on Fort Defiance Housing Corp. 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(6); Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. of Nev. (In re Ormsby), 591 F.3d 1199, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements under § 523(a)(6)); Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that [p]rinciples of collateral estoppel apply to proceedings seeking exceptions from discharge brought under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), and setting ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 11-15873 forth elements under § 523(a)(2)(A)). Appellants request for a stay is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 11-15873
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.
