Summary:
After prevailing in a Virginia state court breach of contract case, Dan Martin sought to except his $151,501 judgment from Deborah Parker’s Chapter 7 discharge. Martin alleged embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), claiming Parker wrongfully liquidated financial accounts that, under a “Post-Marital Agreement” and mutual wills between her father (Morton) and Martin’s mother (Peggy), were partially due to him. Although the bankruptcy court agreed with Martin and deemed the debt nondischargeable, the district court reversed, finding Parker lacked the requisite fraudulent intent. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
The facts were largely undisputed. Morton and Peggy had agreed their combined estates would pass two-thirds to Dan and one-third to Morton’s children, including Deborah. However, after Peggy’s death, Morton retitled his financial accounts with Deborah as joint owner or beneficiary. When Morton died, Deborah liquidated the accounts. Upon learning of the agreement and will, Deborah sought guidance from banks, which told her the joint ownership and beneficiary designations overrode the agreement and the will. Relying on that advice, she kept the funds.
The Fourth Circuit held that while the funds may have passed to Deborah under suspect circumstances, embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) requires proof of fraudulent intent. It is not enough that she took what may have legally belonged to someone else; she must have intended to defraud. The record showed she disclosed the will and agreement to the financial institutions and was told the accounts were hers. The bankruptcy court clearly erred in ignoring this undisputed evidence and inferring bad faith solely from her knowledge of the will. Without evidence of fraudulent intent, no embezzlement occurred, and the debt was dischargeable.
Commentary:
This decision reinforces the high burden a creditor bears to except a debt from discharge, especially under § 523(a)(4)'s embezzlement provision. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that wrongful taking alone is insufficient—there must be actual fraudulent intent. Here, the debtor’s disclosure of the conflicting estate documents to banks and her reliance on their advice created a good-faith defense that could not be overcome by mere disagreement over the legal outcome.
The court also indirectly reminded lower courts that they may not disregard undisputed record evidence in favor of inferences that support a preferred narrative—particularly when the discharge exception is construed narrowly and in favor of the debtor.
Practice Pointer:
For practitioners seeking to invoke § 523(a)(4), this case highlights the necessity of demonstrating fraudulent intent with concrete evidence. A mistaken belief—even if objectively unreasonable—can be a sufficient defense if it was held in good faith and informed by outside counsel or institutions.
Consumer Bankruptcy Insight:
For Chapter 7 and 13 debtor attorneys, Martin v. Parker provides a strong precedent supporting discharge where a debtor's actions were based on apparent authority or advice, even if a later court finds a breach or unjust enrichment. In Chapter 13, this case may also be instructive in objecting to claims based on alleged bad acts when there's no showing of fraudulent intent or where the debtor relied on professional advice. See also Sugar/Sasser v. Burnett where the 4th Circuit also relied heavily on the defense of reliance on advice of counsel.
Final Thought:
Martin may have been wronged by a failure to uphold an estate plan, but bankruptcy courts cannot serve as probate courts. Without clear evidence of bad faith, the fresh start remains intact.
With proper attribution, please share this post.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments