When does tenant damage to property arise to willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)?
Claims for early termination of leases are very common in bankruptcy cases. Generally costs for preparing the property for the next tenant is covered by rental deposits. Occasionally claims are made for more substantial damage to the premises. While most of these do not lead to adversary proceedings, a nightmare factual situation resulted in a 523(a)(6) nondischargeability judgment against a debtor in the Wisconsin case of DeWitt v Jacob (In re Jacob), Case #18-26186-beh, Adv #18-02217-beh, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 354 (Bankr. E.D. Wis., 11 February 2020). A detailed history of the facts gives a setting to the case. Mr. DeWitt, the landlord, purchased a renovated home in May 2016, and lived there with two families of tenants: Mr. & Mrs. Jacob with their two young children and two dogs; and a Ms. Suchocki with her child. The Jacobs resided in the basement with use of the living room, bathroom, and kitchen on the first floor. Mr. DeWitt's bedroom was also on the 1st floor. Ms. Suchocki rented the 2nd floor bedrooms with use of the first floor common areas. Mr. DeWitt left for a weekend in August 2016 to take care of his parent's home and dog, and remained there for a time when the Jacobs advised him there was a bedbug problem at the house. When Mr. DeWitt attempted to have the home inspected and treated for bedbugs, the Jacobs denied access to both Mr. DeWitt and the inspectors. He later saw Ms. Suchocki and Mrs. Jacobs in his bedroom, which they did not have permission to access, while driving by the house. Mr. DeWitt then had the police assist him in gaining entry to the home on November 2, and found the property filled with clutter and in disarray. He returned on November 6 with his parents to install a deadbolt lock on his bedroom door to protect his belongings. The visit was videotaped by him. Again police had to be called to allow admittance to the property. Again trash was everywhere, with no clean surface in the kitchen or bathroom, and refuse scattered on the floors and other surfaces. Widows were covered by fabric or newspapers, though no structural damage was apparent. In the video both Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs can be heard yelling at Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Jacob raises a baseball bat multiple times, and attempts to deny access to anything but Mr. DeWitt's bedroom. The deadbolt was installed, but Mr. Jacob exclaimed that he would kick the door regardless of the lock. Both Jacobs claim that Mr. DeWitt could not remove any property from the premises because they believed it was no longer his, and threatened to 'bash his skull in' if he took any other property. Ultimately Mr. DeWitt leaves without removing any of his personal property. On December 6, 2016 Mr. DeWitt files an eviction action against both the Jacobs and Ms. Suchocki. On 4 January 2017 the court ruled in favor of Mr. DeWitt and finding Mr. Jacob's testimony to not be credible, also noting the evidence could support a referral for criminal prosecution. The Jacobs were removed from the property on 11 January 2017. Within hours of the eviction Mr. DeWitt took control of the home and took photographs of the interior. Trash littered the home in poles, covering the floors. The walls were damages with holes, drawings in crayon and ash, and scorch or burn marks. Mr. DeWitt's bedroom door had a large crack, over 12" long. His bedframe was disassembled, and the mattress and bedding badly soiled. His eyeglasses broken. His desk in pieces with a portion burned in a barbecue grill on the patio. The wall of the garage next to the grill was warped from heat damage. His personal property was strewn about the property. Ms. Jacob testified she had removed his clothing from his bedroom, put it in trash bags, and taken them to the garage. Mr. DeWitt testified that the clothes in the bags were wet and bagged with broken glass and razor blades. Some of Mr. DeWitt's items were missing, including a BlueRay disc player, an ipod, watches, sunglasses, a cell phone, and photographs and sports medals of priceless sentimental value. Mr. DeWitt obtained a default civil judgment against the the Jacobs and Ms. Suchocki of $41,525 on 10 July 2017. The Jacobs filed for relief under chapter 7 on 22 June 2018. Mr. DeWitt then filed an adversary seeking to declare $15,000 of the judgment as nondischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(6). The bankruptcy court noted that the plaintiff in a §523(a)(6) action has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is nondischargeable, ie that it is more likely than not that the debt meets the elements of §523(a)(6). This subsection requires 1) an injury caused by the debtor 2) willfully, and 3) maliciously. As applied to tenant damage to premises, damage by caused by dogs, children, or friends can result in a §523(a)(6) judgment if there is a showing that the debtor encouraged the actions.1 Mere failure to maintain the rental property does not give rise to a nondischargeability claim.2 Here the court examined each item of damage in turn to see if it met the requirements for §523(a)(6). As to the crack in Mr. DeWitt's bedroom door, the court rejected Mr. Jacob's testimony that it must have come from installing the deadbolt, finding the more likely scenario is that he carried out his threat to break into to the room. The $745.50 damage related to this was found to be nondischargeable. As to the bags of clothing packed with razor blades and broken glass, given Ms. Jacob's testimony that she removed the clothing from Mr. DeWitt's bedroom, the Court found that packing his clothing in this dangerous manner is willful and malicious. Given Mr. DeWitt's testimony that he ultimately had to dispose of the clothing because they were heavily soiled and foul-smelling, the court allowed $2,047.49 as nondischargeable based on calculations of replacement cost provided by Mr. DeWitt. The court also found that $1,196.52 was nondischargeable for damage to the desk and warped siding. Breaking and burning the desk is not an accidental occurrence, and cannot be done by mere negligence. Rather it is a hostile reaction to a relationship that had completely deteriorated. The court did not find in favor of Mr. DeWitt as to the damages for clean-up and restoration of the house and yard. The disarray in the house from the November and January videos look about the same, and suggest that the tenants never learned how to keep house, and fall between the lines of crudeness and gross negligence, but not up to that of willful and malicious injury. Nor did the court rule for Mr. DeWitt as to the bedbug inspections and treatment, given the lack of evidence that the Jacobs willfully or malicously invited the bedbugs into the home. Finally, Mr. DeWitt did not establish that it was the Jacobs rather than Ms. Suchocki that were the cause of the loss of his personal property such as the Blu-Ray plyer, inhaler, and decorative items. The court found that $3,989.51 of the state court judgment was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6).1 O'Brien v. Sintobin (In re Sintobin), 253 B.R. 826, 830 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2000). ↩2 In re Merkman, 604 B.R. 122, 130 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019)(collecting cases)↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100https://tampabankruptcy.com