|
In The United States Bankruptcy Court
Case No. 05-40334-EEB In re: Robbins, Barbara Debtor
Karen Dudnikov, Plaintiffs vs. Barbara Robbins Defendant COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §523, 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) Plaintiffs Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors, pro se, object to the discharge of the Defendant and the dischargeability of the Defendant's debt to the Plaintiffs; seeking the denial of the Debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (4)(A) and, alternatively, to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4004 In support of this complaint, the Plaintiffs state and aver as follows: JURISDICTION 1. On October 12, 2005, the Defendant Barbara Robbins (“Robbins”) filed a voluntary petition pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 11of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The Petition was assigned case number 05-40334-EEB. 2. This proceeding is brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(4), §523(a)(6), §727(a) and §707(b). This matter arises in the bankruptcy case of Barbara Robbins (“Debtor”), under 11 U.S.C. § 727, 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4004. 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§157, 1334 and 1409 as well as Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001, and 11 U.S.C. §523. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 because this matter arises in and is related to a case filed under title 11, United States Code. 4. This is a core proceeding. This matter at bar is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J) because it is an objection to a discharge of debtor. STANDING 5. Defendant Robbins listed Plaintiffs as a creditor of Defendant in the Debtor's schedule. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(c)(1) and 727(c)(2).VENUE 6. Venue of this matter is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado because the Debtor filed under Title 11, United States Code, in the District of Colorado, and this matter arises in and is related to that case under Title 11, United States Code.BACKGROUND FACTS 11 U.S.C. §523 7. In 2000, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a contract whereby the Defendant agreed to be the general contractor for a home purchased from Defendant's company.8. This contract included provisions whereby the Defendant agreed to perform certain actions and deliver certain products and included certain fiduciary responsibilities. CAUSE OF ACTION 11 U.S.C. §523 9. In 2001, after disagreements concerning the completion of the contract and Defendant's unwillingness to provide proof of alleged expenses, Defendant filed a fraudulent lien against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs counter-sued in the District Court for Park County.10. The District Court for Park County ruled the lien to be fraudulent and declared it invalid. The Court also awarded damages and costs to the Plaintiffs finding the lien was fraudulent and awarded treble damages under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The Court order is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 11. The Defendant's willful act of filing a fraudulent lien against the Plaintiffs caused harm to the Plaintiffs affecting their credit and causing addition expense in obtaining financing for the home. 12. As the General Contractor, Defendant contractually and willfully assumed a fiduciary position which she violated. 13. Defendant's debt to Plaintiffs Dudnikov and Meadors is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(4) and §523(a)(6). ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) 14. Debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A).15. Debtor knowingly and fraudulently presented or used a false claim, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(B). 16. Debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor's liabilities, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5). 17. This Court, on its own motion or on motion by a party of interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under Chapter 7 whose debts are primarily consumer debts if it finds that the granting of relief would be a substantial abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7 as allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). 18. Documents and arguments supporting the allegations contained in ¶¶14-17 are attached to this complaint titled “COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §523, 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)”. CONCLUSION Therefore, Plaintiffs Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors respectfully request that this Court enter a judgment determining that Defendant is not entitled to a discharge in bankruptcy for her debt to Plaintiffs, together with an order for costs and expenses.Also, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a judgment determining that Defendant is not entitled to a discharge in bankruptcy for her debts under 11 U.S.C. §727(a), or alternately, to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), together with an order for costs and expenses. Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of February, 2005.
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Karen Dudnikov
Michael Meadors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §523, 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §523, 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) was mailed, with all attachments, postage prepaid Priority Mail with delivery confirmation, to the following on February 2, 2006:
John C Eastlack, Attorney for the Debtor
__________________________________________ |